The Biggest Story that Will Destroy Bushco

[Homer12]

I beleive, as many others, that Bushco new that their was a potential that 9/11 was going to happen, either through pure incompetnace or willing acceptance to adavance their agenda, they had enough information in the least to call for more security at airports around the country.

Their is plenty of mounting evidence of this prior knowledge, no matter HOW much they try to blame Bill CLinton and Joh Kerry (another bait and switch), we have to keep on repeating this evidence, over and over again. There is plenty of it.

The real traitors are Bush and his administration.

The media will and has ignored this, but as the time comes closer for teh 9/11 commission to release its findings, while Bushco stammers and delays even testifying in front of them, the more suspect they become.

The Major media is one thing, but are netwrok on the internet is another, we have more power than they give us credit for.

[rocktivity]

1. And the more the major media spins, the less credible they'll look

and the more likely a victorious Kerry will punish them with his own brand of media "reform."

It was the Internet that got Trent Lott demoted, and that effectively nullified Bush's "Kerry is a flip-flopper" campaign strategy. And don't forget that the Pretzel-Dunce is no longer one of the CIA's favorite people. They may be planning a little "October surprise" of their own!

:headbang:
rocknation

[orwell]

2. Terror

They can not wait for the 9/11 commission findings. They need to lay the groundwork for public distrust now.

The Bush Regime must be relentlessly attacked on it's war on Terra failures, from all sides. The Spanish bombings are a perfect attack point.

We've captured Saddam. We control Iraq. The world is no safer.

O

[info being]

3. I agree, but it isn't easy to argue this

I had the LIHOP conversation with a Conservative at work yesterday (this guy is starting to doubt Bush on Iraq...but the LIHOP was way over the top and he went into a tailspin). He wouldn't consider it because it just couldn't be true...no need to understand any of the details.

I think, however, that unless we break the thought pattern that Bush is the guy who will protect us from terrorists, people are under his spell. I'm not sure how best to do this.

[TNOE]

4. Trust me

thousands of Americans have been saying this since 9/11 - and thanks to those thousands many more thousands realize it now too. It definitely comes as a shock to the senses to hear it (I've seen lots of that) - but eventually if they're sensible - they come around. You have no idea how many people are tirelessly working to get this message out - it is the only message that is going to truly save us and change things - if its possible and if its not already too late. There are volunteers handing out pamphlets, standing day in and day out at Ground Zero, contacting their representatives (go to Tom Flocco's site and sign up) - I keep getting to the point where I think its just about ready to break and explode - but than the Rove machine kicks in and starts stooping so low as to slander the 9/11 widows and families, ban them from protesting, media silence, blame Clinton - I cannot understand for the life of me why people cannot put 2 and 2 together - if he refuses to testify under oath and so does Condi, and the rest of them - what is left to question. They are OBVIOUSLY AND APPARENTLY GUILTY. They have done EVERYTHING in their power to obstruct, underfund, and delay the Commission, and yet they are brazen enough to use 9/11 at every opportunity. The media knows the real story - no one has the guts to report it. If it were me and I were a paper editor - I'd give my life to get the truth out - but then we all know Bush owns all the media. It is left up to us - one person at a time, one day at a time - but this has been going on for 3 years. We are running out of time I fear.

[freedom04]

5. ??

but then we all know Bush owns all the media???

that is quite a stretch-- the main stream media is not in bush's court.. i dont understand how you could think so.

[TNOE]

7. You don't read much do you?

There are only a handful of people who truly own the Media, Rupert Murdoch, Moon, the head of GE, Clear Channel, etc. - ALL in Bush's pockets. You haven't believed the lies that the media is really liberal have you? Silly man. If Bush didn't - he would have been gone immediately after 9/11, except the media built him up to be some type of hero when in reality HE DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, DID NOT MAKE 1 PHONE CALL, DID NOT QUIT READING TO A BUNCH OF 2ND GRADERS, DID NOT JUMP TO ATTENTION, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

[freedom04]

8. TNOE

TNOE,

I respectfully disagree w/ you. I do believe that there is a major left bias in the media-- I see it everyday!

[Cat Atomic]

10. Give me a few specific examples of media bias to the left.

Please.

[Cat Atomic]

21. That's what I thought.

No examples.

[freedom04]

22. no ex..

i just gave you a few examples

[immoderate]

12. Some examples, please?

[salin]

15. Guess it depends upon perspective

of what is left, right and center.

When the media started, in the summer of 2002, to pump up the war with cnn and msnbc (and fox) having "countdown to war" daily "news" shows... at a time when public sentiment was mixed (about 50%) to go to war IF with UN... and decidedly AGAINST the war (about 79%) unilaterly... a leftward tilt was not apparent.

When the "talking heads" were selected per the "countdown to war" shows the panels tended to be 3:1 in favor of going to war - again long before the public had been convinced by the fake rhetoric per nukes in Iraq and links to al qeada.

For a real eye opener - ask resident prog. writer - Will Pitt about his experience about four days after the UN inspections teams were in Iraq when he was asked to be an expert on "WHY THE INSPECTIONS WERE FAILING"... not about "Opinions on the inspections"... that is - the news coverage was planned to a script - not to talk about the inspections - but to talk about the failure of the inspections... in december - after the inspectors had only been in Iraq for less than a week. Doesn't sound like left-wing slant.

The news coverage in the last election that repeated trivial Gore bashing on (false) stories about "inventing the internet" and "being the primary source for Love Story" being repeated over and over (with NO inclusion of the information that gave clarification - and denied the way the right was spinning it)... while the stories of serious problems - investigation into insider trading by Bush AND the well documented FAILURE of his businesses while he was running as "the first MBA presdient"... didn't sound like left-wing slant. Note what they did talk about Gore (ad nauseum)... "he changed his image by wearing brown tones" was trivial but meant to demean. What they didn't talk about Bush was straight to qualifications (how would he manage the US fiscally when he kept driving his own companies to the edge of bankruptcy)... and to how he was framing himself as the better president.

[hermetic]

25. What Liberal Media

You all know there is a book with that title, right? It's out in paperback now. I have nothing to gain by recommending it, I haven't even read it myself. But you can find out more about it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3449870&p1=01%7C%7C%7C%7C003
I mean, if you really want examples, here are 322 pages worth. Just the description of it is worth reading.

[NewJeffCT]

11. don't forget

Don't forget Conrad Black & Richard Mellon Scaife

[Wapsie B]

6. Yes.

A week ago one of my co-workers had a similar conversation with me. With him being an independent and having a konservative for one his best friends he floored me when he blurted out that he thought chimpy caused 9/11 to happen. Even with the media distorting things out there the wheels are turning.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Focus on the cover-up

He and Cheney immediately called Democratic leaders to request/cajole/threaten them so there would be no investigation. The creation of the the system by which the joint report was done was fought. The Department of Homeland Security was fought for about a year. The finished report of the joint commission was withheld (okay, that was to keep the Iraq-was-involved lie alive until after the war started, but why quibble?) for almost half of a year. The special commission was designed to be incredibly favorable, to such a degree that the original chairman had to resign due to well-known conflict of interest. The oil pipeline deal went through in Afghanistan, helped by the ex-Unocal employee who's now "President" of Afghanistan.

They've fought at every turn to demand that nobody question them. These are the acts of guilty people, and ANYBODY can see that. The simple statement of each act of obfuscation--better than I did--should be enough to raise a cry from the rafters. Don't talk LIHOP, that's too big a leap for people to make; talk incompetence. Talk of how they were focused on greed for energy money and tax breaks to deal with what the Clinton Administration told them was an immediate problem. The U.S.S. Cole was less than a month before the election, so these guys were derelict in their duties.

Go for the incompetence angle: they were obsessed with personal greed and money to such a selfish degree that they neglected their primary duty, and then compounded it by lying while using it to their advantage to continue their money-grubbing game of world conquest.

[freedom04]

13. time

Just a quick example-- I don't have much time to spend here..

time magazine is very liberal and is a high circulating magizine..
In the latest issue there are multiple "positive" articles about Kerry - and on the other hand there are multiple "negative" articles about Bush--

I'm not saying that I disagree with Time -- but i do think that it is present.

[immoderate]

14. What issue is being slanted?

Is it liberal to tell the truth?

BTW, I'm not conceding that time is liberal.

--IMM

[freedom04]

16. no

the tone of the articles is slanted. There are many ways that one can say the same thing. IMO - most of the articles in time will go out of the way to either put a negative or positive turn on things. It is one thing to report but yet another to persuade!

that's all.


I also see it with Tom B. and Dan R. -- i believe that they let personal beliefs slant the angle that they may take on stories- rather than just reporting the story-- it would be more beneficial for liberals if these "tones" were not present. It would give the GOP less to "complain" about...

[immoderate]

17. If it's true that...

...say, a certain president is lying, and a magazine reports that lie, is that, IYHO, being biased?

--IMM

[salin]

18. Of course it is hard to write positive stories

when one's policies have been failing... e.g., budget analyses now show that the ongoing HUGE and record breaking deficits have little to do with the 2001 market downturn, the aftermath of 9-11, or the costs associated with the War... they are more directly related to the tax cuts.

Tax cuts and corporate tax break policies that work to encourage off shore sheltering of funds and off shore movement of jobs (set up a subsidiary in... a lower cost country?!?!) does not help to create jobs in the US that pay middle class salaries. Naming a "job czar" to address the wane in manufacturing jobs... who has recently closed down a domestic plant to move it off-shore to China... hard to write something positive about that.

When the war in Iraq stripped intelligence, military and monetary resources from ongoing "war on terror" efforts in Afghanistan, and that as a result al qeada was regrouping (it had, reportedly, been destabilized by the initial war in Afghanistan) as early as the summer of 2002, and by the summer of 2003 the Taliban was regrouping... and now, reportedly the Taliban again controls about 1/3 of the country... hard to write positive things about that.

The fact of not having equal stories, may be that this presidency has been a disaster and there isn't much positive to write. Remember the push/complaint that the war coverage was all negative - but positive things were happening such as school construction? Reporters then went to find those schools - found money paid but where work had been done often shoddy, incomplete and chaotic (and unsafe)... turned out that even trying to spin those successes postively had been a challenge.

Oh lets see... there is "good news" in medicare so the media says.. oh wait.. those "reporters" being shown on the local news... not reporters at all - it was scripted public awareness/public relations efforts and the information was a bit misleading. Point after point the bush policies and actions have been PR blunders.

[freedom04]

20. no

i do not think that would be biased -- and i see what you are getting at! you may be 100% right..


sorry to hit and run- but i have work to do

i look forward to talking on this site in the future!



USA!!!!!!

[Bridget Burke]

24. Bring some links with you when you return.

Some really specific examples of the left-leaning media!

[Cat Atomic]

27. THAT'S your example?

Media bias has more to do with the range of debate. For instance, Republicans and mainstream Democrats both talk about how we can "save" Social Security. The debate itself is bullshit, no matter the tone of the writer. Social Security is not in jeopardy to begin with.

See what I mean?

[proud patriot]

19. His lack of Conviction in the War on Terror

this is his weak point IMHO ...

take him down where his thinks he's strong .

[rumguy]

23. I believe the Richard Clarke book is coming out in August

I guess that book will have some bombshells in it...Clarke tried to warn the boy king about the coming terrorist attacks, and he was rebuffed...

[ConcernedCanuk]

26. I found A good resource, with short printable flyers on 911 and more

.
.
.

From one of the flyers:

THE WARNINGS – BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS TOLD:

Upon coming into office, the Bush Administration inherited a government that was receiving more and more specific warnings about the threat of an Al Qaeda attack on the United States.

As ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes."

Similarly, Newsweek reported "that as many as 10 to 12 warnings" were
issued, and "more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings."

Meanwhile, George Tenet, "was issuing many warnings that bin Laden was 'the most immediate' threat to Americans."

The warnings were so explicit that in the months leading up to 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines and instead began "traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines" because of "what the Justice Department called a 'threat assessment.'"

That "threat assessment" was not made public.

http://www.speakingformyself.net/wyomingdissent/cap-sep11.pdf

A good read, only 2 pages, but very informative . .

and

A list of this and other flyers re 911, the "coalition", Junior's lies at the SOTU and more at the following link:

http://www.speakingformyself.net/wyomingdissent/printfliers.htm

[TNOE]

28. I wanted to relay this too

that I was at a semi-distant family dinner, this family is Jewish and very very wealthy but have experienced a great deal of tragedy in their life - but the issue of the Passion of the Christ came up - and they were adamant that they weren't going to see it and that it would bring about anti-semitisim, etc... somehow, and I'm not sure how - but the discussion went to 9/11 - and when I mentioned that Bush & Co. were definitely behind it - one family member about my age really got upset and went off about it - he was so shocked, all of a sudden he was talking about "martians" and what you're saying is just far out there, etc., etc. He was getting really upset and we were told to quit talking about it - but in retrospect - what I didn't do and wish I had done - was to ask him if he has studied his history - specifically how Hitler came to power with the burning of the Reischtag and then the powers that were quickly passed and then when any opposition arose - the drowning out of voices by singing patriotically..., etc. I have since very much regretted not asking that - as I think he would have had a change of tune. So I guess the point is - if the people you are talking to are Jewish... make mention of Hitler's rise. I expect we will be together again some time soon - and if he brings it up - I will drop that bomb. Maybe he has since done some research. However - its amazing how deathly afraid of what the news media had told them about the Passion of the Christ and how they thought people were going to be coming after them.