defending her abuser(s) yet again.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

manipulations of language. I thought I'd heard everything in the intricate discussion of what "is" "is" and the whole 'politically correct' wordsmithing under the first Clinton's Presidency. Well, Bill's semantics and philosophical meanderings have come into full fruitition with the Bush administration, where we must delve into the meaning of "time" and "truth" itself to make sense of the statements and press releases!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing the man does or says is clear the first time around. Everything requires other people to tell us what he really means. And Dana is downright spooky! Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that the lying hag has one of the toughest jobs in the country right now.

How would you like to have to explain to the world that a deliberate untruth, told with the intention to deceive is not a bald faced lie.

How would you like to have to defend a boss so stupid as to tell a whole series of lies knowing that they were going to be exposed as such in a matter of months, days or the most recent cases, even HOURS?

Fortunately (for her), integrity won't even be an item on the app for the cushy job she is lining up as we speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get with the program people.

Reality is what the President says it is, unless he later says it is something else, in which case it is then that, and it always was that. He is the President of the greatest country on earth, and commander in chief of the biggest military, equal to all the rest of the world’s put together, therefore he has the right at any time, but especially in a time of war, to revise reality, even retrospectively.

What is the problem? Get real folks! What is all this quibbling about semantics?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"This isn't complicated. When Bush says one thing, and then White House officials tell us that reality is something different, then necessarily what the president told us wasn't true."

Not necessarily. It could be as simple as the notoriously liberal and, thus, evil, mainstream media asking the White House officials trick questions that caused them to say something that seemed contrary to what the president said, and then quoting them out of context. They do that all the time, you know. Just ask the fair and balanced "news" people at Fox.

"I can enjoy rhetorical parsing as much as the next guy, but in no way is it possible to characterize obviously-false remarks as "truthful," unless the Dana Perino changed the meaning of the word when no one was looking."

Oh, come on, this one is obvious. Dana Perino said the president was being "truthful." She made no pretense of say the president was being "entirely truthful." You are stretching her explanation to mean more than she really said.

Here's how it works. You take Bush's statements, toss them in the big White House spin machine, which is sort of like a centrifuge on steroids. The spin machine separates out the verbs. What you are left with is 100% truthful, though often mispronounced, nouns, pronouns, prepositions, and let's of mumbling. It's truthful, it just doesn't mean anything. But that's how it works.

That's why Bush often sounds incoherent when he speaks. It's not that he is brain damaged, although, admittedly, that is the first explanation that comes to mind. But, no, it's just that he is making an extra effort to be "truthful" by tossing out any words that might make his tendency to lie every time he opens his mouth meaningful and comprehensible. It's called "presidential preprocessing." It means means mumbling and stuttering instead of telling the lies that he has in mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

george bush has never been held accountable for anything his entire life. and he ain't gonna start being accountable now just because you don't like it. you're gonna have to impeach the bastard. ps get your army ready first,because blackwater will be taking his side. better arm some more people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After trying so miserably to spin Dumbyah's way out of this one, Dana should just hang it up with what little integrity she has and go on Girls Gone Wild.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lying is. It's not that what he says is hard to understand, it's that everything he says is an outright LIE! As the old adage goes, "when do you know when Bush is lying? He opens his mouth." My son has noted that when Bush lies, he blinks a lot. I've watched and it does seem to be an indicator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THANK YOU STEVE BENEN FOR TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN ONLY KUCINICH AND A FEW OTHER BRAVE INDY MEDIA FOLKS DO SO. WE CAN GET RID OF THOSE LYING CRIMINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!


Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW

Defense of the Constitution Knows No Party


The Bush administration has illegally seized and imprisoned Americans without benefit of their trial by jury, has spied on Americans without warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, has lied America into a disastrous war, and has betrayed an American intelligence officer, who was working on weapons of mass destruction networks, to our enemies (Valerie Plame.)

Impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney are now a distinct possibility, thanks to a recent outpouring of public support for impeachment by Americans across the political spectrum. Your calls and faxes to House Judiciary Committee members are needed to keep up the pressure.

Leave a message for your Congressman, to demand he obey his oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Act now to restore your rights and the rule of law bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, which brave men have died defending throughout our history.

Call the House Judiciary Committee

202-225-3951
and demand that Impeachment hearings begin ASAP!





*What Happened to Make This All Possible?

On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought H.Res.333, for the impeachment of Cheney, to the House Floor for debate. It was broadcast on CSPAN. A sudden outpouring of public support for impeachment forced lawmakers to keep the resolution alive. Democrats, most of whom currently resist demands for impeachment, were unwilling to kill the bill with the public watching. Republicans and some Democrats, mindful of impeachment sentiment, voted to debate the bill, but failed. At the end of the day, Americans of both parties had made it clear whose "table" this is, and that they want to see impeachment on it.



For more information go to
NEImpeach.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dana Perino is a terrible lier. Time and time again, she has stumbled with what she calls the truth. Whenever I hear anything out of the White House that common sense tells me is a lie, I can only shake my head and laugh. It used to bother me to the point of anger, but hearing the multitude of lies and fictitious blather that comes spewing from the mouths of these criminals now only causes me to chuckle at their idiocy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DON'T get me started.

"I wanna kill. I wanna kill, kill, kill. I wanna see blood and guts, and veins in my teeth. I wanna kil, kill, kill"
-Arlo Guthree

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But we don't really do anything about that, or ...
- Burma slotter of hundreds of democratic protestors
- Dubi Genecide
- Congo Rapping of thousands of women
- American infrastucture
- Waco Texas murders by the FBI, Militia
- Oklahoma City bombing
- 911 cover up
- the US economy is in full tail spin on an express elevator to hell,
going Down!

Hell, just follow suit like good little Americans.
Don't even try to get Pelosi out of office. Because "Impeachment is off the table".
"Impeachment would only divide the country further", Diane Feinstein

If (oh, we do know the truth) we only knew the truth.

GOD DAM IT, "I want you to get up out of you chair from in front of you T.V.s. Go to the window and yell at the top of your lungs right now and say,
'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more' ".-Network

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The lying/stuttering/stammering Barbiefool is only surpassed by her lying/stuttering/stammering fool of a boss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

of this damnable president?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Criminal Negligence is defined as “careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.” “Negligence means conduct that is culpable because it misses the legal standard required of a reasonable person in protecting individuals against foreseeably risky, harmful acts of other members of society.” (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

It is true that President Bush had congressional authority to attack Iraq. It is also true that the military involved “won” the war with the low number of troops used in the attack. In my opinion it is also true that Iraq did not attack us and that therefore it was a war of choice. It is my opinion that the military was sent to Iraq on a lie (weapons of mass destruction, cherry picking the intelligence estimates to follow, etc,) and without a clear set of goals/objectives the military could achieve.

The US military commenced operations against Iraq (per President George W. Bush’s authorization) on March 19, 2003. A sign displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln during a televized address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003 declared that “Mission Accomplished” and the war was won (no more fighting) the US was starting the “occupation” phase (also without achievable military objectives). Between then and the middle of 2007 the level of troop and civilian deaths continued to grow (as did the numbered wounded).

During 2007 the President authorized a “surge” in the level of troops in Iraq – from around 130,000 to about 160,000. During the second half of 2007 the number of deaths and those wounded droped significantly. This all happened after the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (November 2006) and the changing of the commanding general in Iraq.

In October 2002, General Zini (former Commander of Central Command) in a speech said that to go into Iraq there were certain considerations that the US should heed, including: involve our regional partners (except Israel); understand Iraqi history (the nature of the country and supressed passions), “street issues” (including political, social, and economic), the long term (10 years) potential costs; and provide stability. Plus, during occupation the Iraqis will need an immediate sense of order. At another time he estimated that post war occupation would require 500,000 troops. In Feburary 2003, Brigadier General Steve Hawkins estimated the troop need to be 350,000.

Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under President Ford before accepting that position under President Bush. He had a distinguished career and was respected for his management capability. President Bush was the Govenor of Texas, a member of its Air National Guard, and received an MBA fron Yale. Both men are considered “accomplished” in their lives. Everyone should expect that they would be effective in managing their organizations and ensuring that those implementing their instructions would have the advantage of carefully considered implementation approaches.
While I was watching the invasion (on the TV) I saw Iraqis walking away with “loot” while US troops looked mon. I yelled at the TV, “Stop them! Don’t let them get away with doing that!!!” (and other words I won’t write here). Similar shouts occured when I saw Iraqis with weapons and US troops didn’t stop them and when I saw US troops leave ammunitions caches without destroying them. It was a year or more before I put it together. The low number of US troops in Iraq along with the tactical operation they needed to acomplish did not allow the troops time to start developing a sense of order and stability.

In summary, it is my opinion that: (See my Opinion on Criminal Negligence)

Dave B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were careless, inattentive, neglectful, and willfully blind to the consequences of:
Sending in too few troops to win the war in Iraq and develop a sense of continued law and order while maintaining stability. They did this by choice not because we were attacked. Therefore, they miss the legal standard required of a reasonable person in protecting individuals against foreseeably risky, harmful acts of other members of (Iraqi) society.

This opinion is supported by the increase number of troops and civilians killed and injured between 2003 and mid 2007.

This opinion is supported by the information provided by General Zini and Brigadier General Steve Hawkins as to the number of troops required and the other considerations previously identified.

Given the political experience of President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld they should have known better then to allow the situation in Iraq to get out of control, the facts belie their expert decision making, therefore any and all reasonable people should conclude that they were willfully blind to the consequences and are criminally negligent in the prosecution of the war and especially with development of peace during the occupation..


Dave B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]