Posted on 09/01/2006 9:59:25 AM PDT by Miami Vice
Another smear campaign/conspiracy theory/myth about the Bush administration has been pretty much debunked. For three years now, Joe Wilson, Democrats, communists and the liberal media have been saying that Karl Rove should be indicted and imprisoned for revealing the name of a CIA operative in order to discredit Wilson. Chris Mathews, one of the leading proponents of this conspiracy theory, acted as Rove's judge, jury and executioner. He insisted that Rove was the source. We now know this was not the case - and never was. It was a former State Department official who inadvertently disclosed the information One by one, the conspiracy theories and allegations of lying, made by a coalition of liberals, communists, Democrats and Buchananites, have been discredited. The investigations, so desired by them, have exonerated President Bush. Listed here are some of the more notable false accusations made against the Bush administration along with the names of notable proponents - in parentheses - and the facts. These are:
False accusation #1: The 2000 election was stolen with the help of the Supreme Court. A corollary to this was that blacks were disenfranchised. (Congressional Black Caucus, Michael Moore, the World Socialist Web Site).
Truth: Independent audits by newspapers, antipathetic to Bush being president, revealed that he would have won the election if the recount continued. An investigation by the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights reported, "(The Commission) does not find that the highest officials of the state conspired to disenfranchise voters." [1]
False accusation #2: Bush knew about 9-11 in advance and did nothing to prevent it because he wanted to invade Iraq (Howard Dean, Georgia Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney).
Truth: This one is so bizarre that - to quote Orwell, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." This is merely a recycled conspiracy theory from World War II. Then, people claimed FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing because he wanted an excuse to enter World War II.
False accusation #3: The war was meant to distract from a bad economy (Democratic National Committee).
Truth: The economic boom - during which more blacks own houses than ever before, and there is less child poverty among blacks than ever before - is more a function of the Bush tax cuts and the housing market.
False accusation #4: Bush secretly conspired to whisk Saudis out of the country by authorizing them to fly in the days following 9-11 when no one else, "not even the FBI," could fly (Michael Moore, Vanity Fair).
Truth: The 9-11 commission and my own independent investigation have invalidated this. The day the Saudis flew was the day all commercial flights resumed.
False accusation #5: Bush and Cheney encouraged the CIA to exaggerate the intelligence about Iraq to win favor of war (Chris Matthews).
Truth: The Senate Select Intelligence Committee - and other sources - said that this was not the case. Only Senator Carl Levin, ironically, a hawk about Iraq during the Clinton years, is still trying to insist this is true.
False accusation #6: Bush lied when he claimed during his 2003 State of the Union address, " The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Joe Wilson, Tom Daschle)
Truth: In 2004, the Financial Times reported that European intelligence units stated that Iraq was seeking uranium. An independent inquiry about this by a British commission confirmed that there was an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee confirmed that this was true as well.
False accusation #7: The Bush administration is in league with Enron and Halliburton and invaded Iraq to annex their oil reserves (Senator Ted Kennedy, Workers World Party, Revolutionary Communist Party).
Truth: It was well known that the former Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration, Paul Rubin, made the call to Paul O'Neill, the Bush administration Treasury Secretary, to do a favor for Enron when Enron was going bankrupt. It is the Bush administration that has been prosecuting Enron executives for crimes committed during the Clinton years.
The only people profiting from Iraqi oil were those who opposed the war. Hussein was paying the French, the Russians and others who opposed the war, bribes by funds from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program instead of paying for food and medicine for sick and starving Iraqi kids.
False accusation #8: The Iraq war was a personal vendetta by George W. Bush because of Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate his father in 1993 (LA Times Robert Scheer).
Truth: Considering all the other reasons proffered, this is rather a non sequitur. However, even if true, would not another state's plot to assassinate the President of the United States be considered an act of war?
False accusation #9: Bush lied about a relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq (MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Revolutionary Communist Party, Workers World Party, The New York Times, Democratic National Committee).
Truth: There have been reports of cooperation between the two in the media and by government for years. Knight-Ridder, ABC, Newsweek all previously reported this during the 1990's. Clinton's CIA Directors James Woolsey, John Deustch and George Tenet also said so. The 9-11 Commission also said there were contacts - stipulating they were not operational ones. Recently, in March of this year, former Democrat Senator and 9-11 Commissioner, Bob Kerry said recent captured documents indicate a much more collaborative relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq.
The Democrat Vice Chair of the 9-11 Commission said that there was no discrepancy between what Cheney said and the Commission's preliminary report. There were reports that Iraq sent instructors to Afghanistan to teach al-Qaida terrorists. It is intrinsically a fallacy to claim Bush lied when years of evidence by various sources told him al-Qaida and Iraq were linked.
False accusation #10: The war is a plot by a cabal of Neocon imperialists to develop an American empire and protect Israel (Columnists Pat Buchanan and Georgie Anne Geyer, Atlanta Journal and Constitution).
Truth: This theory is another redux of a World War II conspiracy theory - the Jewish cabal-FDR theory. False accusation #11: Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq caused funding to be cut for levee construction, and this caused the levees to break and the flooding of New Orleans (Clinton adviser Sydney Blumenthal, Will Bunch, Phila. Daily News).
The truth is, during a Sept. 1, 2005 interview with Lt General Strock, the Chief of Engineers, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Strock said, "Let me also address the issue of the general impact of the war in Iraq on civil works funding. We've seen some suggestions that our budget has been affected by the war. I can also say that I do not see that to be the case. If you look at the historical levels of funding for the Corps of Engineers from the pre-war levels back to 1992, '91, before we actually got into this, you'll see that the level of funding has been fairly stable throughout that period. So I think we would see that our funding levels would have dropped off if that were the case; so I do not see that as an issue that is relevant to the discussion of the flood protection of the City of New Orleans." During that same interview, Al Naomi, Senior Project Manager for the New Orleans District Corps of Engineers, said, " we would have had to start work on Category 5 protection 20 or 25 years ago to have had in place to effectuate any differences in what happened with this storm."
The propaganda machine of this coalition of liberals, communists, Democrats and Buchananite conservatives began manufacturing lies about the president since the 2000 election. They are every bit as sophisticated at disinformation as the KGB was during the Cold War.
All the investigations discredited these absurd allegations. Unfortunately, the debunking of the lies never got the media prominence the allegation did - with the exception of the Dan Rather episode.
It is rather sad that Democrats have chosen to use all the worse political tactics of their party has used throughout its long history rather than their best.
It was some Democrats, who later came to be known as "Copperheads," referring to the snake that strikes without warning, who tried to subvert President Lincoln's policies during the Civil War. These Northerners, who were sympathetic to the Southern slaveholders, were so egregious in their opposition to the Civil War that many actively gave support to the Confederacy - much like many of today's so-called " antiwar" protesters actively support the enemy, such as Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of aiding terrorists and Ramsey Clark, who is a counsel for Saddam Hussein.
There was a time in America when politics ended at the water's edge. There was a time in America when an American president could respond to his political opponents' vicious criticism without the media criticizing him for doing so.
Perhaps the greatest irony about the criticism of President Bush is that it implies Bush is committing treason, yet when Bush responds to his critics, they bray at being called unpatriotic by the President, even though he is doing no such thing.
President Bush's political enemies can legitimately criticize his policies for many reasons. The fact that they have to resort to lies, conspiracy theories and distortions leads one to believe that they are totally lacking any constructive and intelligent policies or inititatives.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of A Sense of Duty.
Truth: The 9-11 commission and my own independent investigation have invalidated this. The day the Saudis flew was the day all commercial flights resumed.
That is absolutely FALSE.
All known facts PROVE that they flew out on September 20th from Boston.
And they were picked up with the help of the FBI and the CIA.
You said the Saudis flew on a day that noone else was allowed to fly.
I never said any such thing.
His/your statement was WRONG. They did NOT fly out of this country on the 13th of September!
One more time:
One of the nine flights that took Saudi nationals out of the United States after September 11 has drawn particular attention because many of its 26 passengers were relatives of Osama Bin Laden. The so-called "Bin Laden" flight did not leave the United States immediately; it left on September 20, a week after airspace was opened. Moreover, most of the people on this flight, 22 out of 26, were in fact interviewed by the FBI. The 9/11 Commission reported that "many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity."
false.
Which, of course, makes his/your statement
Truth: The 9-11 commission and my own independent investigation have invalidated this. The day the Saudis flew was the day all commercial flights resumed.
Which is EXACTLY what I said in this post:
That is not true.
It appears you are demonstrably the dope in this conversation.
You said To: Miami Vice
The day the Saudis flew was the day all commercial flights resumed.
That is not true
Yes it is true dummy. God, I can't believe you are this thickheaded. You contradict yourself then contradict your contradiction.
ALL COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE FLIGHTS RESUMED 9-13-01 THE DAY THE SAUDIS BEGAN FLYING FROM TAMPA TO KENTUCKY. CHECK YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER ARCHIVES AND THE FAA.
I cannot believe someone as stupid as you has survived to adulthood.
Howlin you wrote : His/your statement was WRONG. They did NOT fly out of this country on the 13th of September!
However just before that yo uquoted Tremoglie who wrote, " False accusation #4: Bush secretly conspired to whisk Saudis out of the country by authorizing them to fly in the days following 9-11 when no one else, "not even the FBI," could fly (Michael Moore, Vanity Fair).
Truth: The 9-11 commission and my own independent investigation have invalidated this. The day the Saudis flew was the day all commercial flights resumed. "
Tremoglie didn't say they flew out of the country that day you dumbjerk he said they FLEW THAT DAY. THey all flew on 9-13-01 to one pioint where they all met BEFORE the FBI did a check and they left the country.
THEY FLEW ON 9-13-01 THEY FLEW ON 9-13-01 THEY FLEW ON 9-13-01. There even an idiot like you should be able to understand this.
ALL COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS INCLUDING PRIOVIATE CHARTERS WERE PERMITTED ON 9-13-01.
Hellooo this is what I have been saying.
False accusation #4: Bush secretly conspired to whisk Saudis
Now these are HIS WORDS, not mine: "Truth: The 9-11 commission and my own independent investigation have invalidated this.
Now try to pay attention here because these are his words:
Notice he did NOT say that they flew to different points in the country and waited to leave on the 20th.
Commerical flights resumed on the 13th; they flew out of the country on September 20th, period.
THey all flew on 9-13-01 to one pioint where they all met BEFORE the FBI did a check and they left the country.
That is NOT what he said in his original article.
SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT STUPID?
THE CLAIM WAS THAT NOBODY WAS ALLOWED TO FLY ON 9-13-01.
WERE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO FLY ON 9-13-01 OR NOT???
YES THEY WERE.
WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YOU IGNORAMUS?
Yes they were so the claim that the Saudis flew when no one else could fly is not valid ( in other you stupid donkey it is invalidated).
EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS EXCEPT FOR MENTALLY MASTURBATING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ( I am sure it is not just mental with you after reading the crap you post.) Why don't you just go back to what you do. Leave the intelligent thinking to normal people.
THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD BE ANY DUMBER IS IF THERE WERE TWO OF YOU.
I can't read the entire article right now, but I gave it a once-over and know I'll want to spend time reading it again later. Thank you so much for posting it, Miami Vice! BTTT
The day the Saudis flew was the day all commercial flights resumed.
and that is not the truth.
You are a bore.
the claim that the Saudis flew when no one else could fly is not valid ( in other you stupid donkey it is invalidated).
Tell that to Byron York and National Review, why don't you?
Bill Carter, the FBI spokesman, is adamant. "We were given full access to the individuals on that plane," he says, "and we were satisfied that we did not believe any of those individuals had anything to do with the 9/11 plots."
The plane to which Carter refers was an aircraft chartered by the Saudi government in the days after the terrorist attacks. The individuals were two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's extended family who had been living in the United States. Saying they were afraid that family members might suffer retribution in the U.S., the Saudis asked for American assistance in getting them out of the country. With the help of the FBI, the Saudis and the bin Laden family chartered an aircraft to pick up family members in Los Angeles, Orlando, and Washington, D.C.
The bin Laden plane then flew the relatives to Boston, where —
You are a bore and you don't know what you are even saying.
Leave the intelligent thinking to normal people.
But then what will YOU be doing?
Talk Host, Attorney Exposes Sen. Schumer, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame
The Common Voice | September 1, 2006 | By Jim Kouri
Posted on 09/01/2006 9:43:50 PM EDT by johnny7
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694151/posts
Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission (Joe Wilson lied about EVERYTHING)
Washington Compost | 7/10/04 | Susan Schmidt
Posted on 07/10/2004 4:49:22 AM EDT by thoughtomator
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1168703/posts
Schumer's Ad....(To liken Latino immigrants to bazooka-toting terrorists)
New York Sun | August 17, 2006 | Editorial
Posted on 08/17/2006 7:22:00 AM EDT by IrishMike
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685149/posts
THEY WERE ALLOWED TO FLY THAT DAY, STUPID. EVERYBODY WAS.
THAT IS THE POINT. THE SAUDIS FLEW WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE WAS ALLOWED TO FLY CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIMS AND MICHAEL MOORE'S CLAIMS AND ALL THE REST OF YOU LUNATIC LIBERALS.
Like I said for for you to be any dumber there would have to be two of you.
Was your mother this stupid? Did the doctor smack you in the head by mistake or something?
It is difficult to believe that you were not born this dumb.
Bush was Right, Michael Mooron Lied!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
I have gotten a lot of emails telling me you have a reading comprehension, but I ignored them, thinking I could get through to you.
I think I will ignore YOU now; you're not worth the trouble and evidently cannot understand the written English language.
Be happy in your ignorance.
Everytime you post something you reveal what a fool you are.
Just keep posting you are actually starting to become comical to me.
HOwlin this could have been written about you. YOu are a conspiracy theory nitwit just like liberal college professors:
Professors, Too, Have A First Amendment Right To Embarrass Themselves in Public
By Sara Dogan--SAF--08/31/06
In a case bearing many similarities to that of University of Wisconsin-Madison Instructor Kevin Barrett, who was widely criticized for his view that Dick Cheney blew up the World Trade Center, tenured University of New Hampshire professor William Woodward has come under fire for the holding same bizarre views.
Woodward, a psychology professor and member of Scholars for 9/11 truth, believes that the United States government is lying about 9/11 and either perpetrated the attacks or allowed them to go forward in order to justify war with Iraq. Like Barrett, Woodward has publicly stated that he makes students aware of his views on 9/11 in his psychology courses, although unlike Barrett he asserts that he only mentions them once or twice a semester, whereas Barrett plans to devote a section of his course on Islam: Religion and Culture to teaching his conspiracy theories alongside the “official” story of 9/11.
Woodward’s public statements on 9/11 have provoked outrage among New Hampshire politicians, several of whom have called for his termination. The University has risen to his defense, asserting that it would be inappropriate and a violation of academic freedom to take any action against Woodward.
While it is understandable that local legislators are upset by Woodward’s political views, and incensed that he would teach them in class, the principle of academic freedom clearly dictates that he should not be fired for his publicly expressed beliefs. As extreme and absurd as his political views may be, he has every right as a citizen to hold them.
With regard to his conduct in the classroom, however, the principles of academic freedom set limits to what is permissible. The 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure” of the American Association of University Professors asserts that “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”
The statement also reminds faculty that their unique position “imposes special obligations” and “they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances” and therefore “should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”
In a recent piece for the New York Times, Professor Stanley Fish clarified these points noting: “All you have to do is remember that academic freedom is just that: the freedom to do an academic job without external interference. It is not the freedom to do other jobs, jobs you are neither trained for nor paid to perform. While there should be no restrictions on what can be taught — no list of interdicted ideas or topics — there should be an absolute restriction on appropriating the scene of teaching for partisan political ideals. Teachers who use the classroom to indoctrinate make the enterprise of higher education vulnerable to its critics and shortchange students in the guise of showing them the true way.”
As the 1940 AAUP statement asserts, a professor’s academic freedom is premised on his or her expertise within a given scholarly field. Woodward’s training is in psychology, not in aerospace engineering, metallurgy, or the many other subjects relevant to the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11. Therefore, while academic freedom dictates that Woodward cannot be fired for his personal view that 9/11 was caused by a government conspiracy, it also holds that he should not bring his personal political views into a class where they are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
In a comment to InsiderHigherEd.com, AAUP General Secretary Roger Bowen emphasized these same points in defending Woodward, noting: “So long as the faculty member teaches within his or her discipline and is careful to teach the truth as set by the highest standards of scholarship within their discipline, they and their universities should not be subjected to political intrusions.” The question is how in the world can Roger Bowen regard a psychology professor’s crackpot theories of 9/11 as reflecting “the truth as set by the highest standards of scholarship within [his] discipline.”
Judging from the Freepmails I've gotten since you started this, I would venture to guess that it's not me whose making a fool out of themselves.
People can hardly wait for your next post to see just how far you're going to take this.
There's even a POOL to see just how many days you're going to continue with this; I'm betting you're going for the FR record!!!
Carry on.
DAY FIVE...
Since you are such an idiot I doubt you get any emails. Then again, it is quite possible that there are some Freepers who are as weird and stupid as you.
You really are a screwball aren't you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.