Bush "Stages" Soldier Teleconference

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Right on par with what his whole administration has been about.

-------------------------------------------------------
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions
President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in
Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."
http://tinyurl.com/d3h9k

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Take away their ownership and control of the MSM, and these thugs are figuratively dead in the water 5 years ago.

Well, at least the majority of the American people are finally waking up to the truth.

Only the right-wing extremists, religio-crazies, and NRA knuckledraggers who constitute Bush's hardcore base still remain in denial (and even some of these people are saying "enough is enough.")

[Ali G]

So does you tink dat it is right to start a war over BLTs?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So does you tink dat it is right to start a war over BLTs?
Looks like one of errant's bros found his way in here.

[elsid13]

Saw most of the on the News hour, with the aid doing the pre-stage event. It looked really bad, no matter what spin the white house puts on it. I always amazed the way this administration seem to up its collective mouth and insert their foot. They are really dumb at times.

[TheDave]

Saw most of the on the News hour, with the aid doing the pre-stage event. It looked really bad, no matter what spin the white house puts on it. I always amazed the way this administration seem to up its collective mouth and insert their foot. They are really dumb at times.

yet 38% still think they are doing a good job(or whatever the recent poll #'s were)... Not sure what it will take to change their minds???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

yet 38% still think they are doing a good job(or whatever the recent poll #'s were)... Not sure what it will take to change their minds???

The 38% = the snake handlers, Klan members, NRA knuckledraggers, and NASCAR dads who think Nixon was an honorable man and Deep Throat was a traitor. The same people who love Trent Lott and Tom DeLay.

To these people, politics is nothing more than a football game, and the only rule is to support "Team GOP" - right or wrong.

These people would still support Bush if he ate their children.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Out-Saddaming Saddam
Mr. Bush Goes to Tikrit (Sort Of)

By JEREMY SCAHILL

Just when you think that President Bush couldn't out-Saddam Saddam any more, he goes and does something that proves you wrong. If any Iraqis caught the hilarious videoconference today between Bush at the White House and troops from the 42nd Infantry Division in Tikrit, it may have seemed like a high-tech version of a familiar scene from the old days when Saddam used to travel to Tikrit to feel (and more importantly to have others feel) his greatness.

The videoconference was a display of just how far the propaganda system has come since Bush took over from Saddam. Instead of visiting Tikrit, which the president lightly acknowledged he could not safely do, Bush addressed-- via satellite--an adoring bunch of US soldiers that had apparently been given a heavy dose of Kool-Aid before the telecast began. Oh, there was one Iraqi there--Sergeant Major Akeel from the 5th Iraqi Army Division, whose role in the affair was limited to smiling like a good Iraqi and saying to Bush, "I like you."

Under Saddam, Iraqis were bombarded via their TVs with video of the Iraqi leader meeting his generals in Tikrit, overseeing military parades, listening intently to his commanders, examining their weapons, firing a rifle here, swinging a sword there. For Iraqis, Tikrit represented the mother of all locations for the regime's propaganda commercial shoots. Few were those Iraqis chosen to be in Saddam's midst for these staged commercials, but at least Saddam actually went there.

Two and a half years after the US occupation began, there stood President Bush at his podium in the White House in front of a massive plasma screen TV, holding an earpiece to his head (out in the open this time). Before him, beamed in by satellite, were the 10 handpicked soldiers. They sat in three rows, fawning over Bush and delivering glowing assessments of the situation on the ground. At one point, it seemed as if one of the soldiers, Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo, was lifting from one of Bush's "major addresses" on Iraq when she told the president, "We began our fight against terrorism in the wake of 9/11, and we're proud to continue it here."

For much of the videoconference, Bush played Fox's Brit Hume as he "interviewed" the soldiers. A telling moment came when Bush asked the troops, "As you move around, I presume you have a chance to interface with the civilians there in that part of the world. And a lot of Americans are wondering whether or not people appreciate your presence or whether or not the people are anxious to be part of the democratic process. Can you give us a sense for the reception of the people there in Tikrit toward coalition forces, as well as the Iraqi units that they encounter?"

It seems that Bush's presumption about his troops "interfacing" with "civilians in that part of the world" about their anxiousness to "be part of the democratic process" was a pipedream. Captain David Williams responded by telling Bush, "Sir, I was with my Iraqi counterpart in Tikrit, the city Tikrit last week, and he was going around, talking to the locals. And from what he told me that the locals told him, the Iraqi people are ready and eager to vote in this referendum."

Those sentiments, relayed second hand from Williams' "Iraqi counterpart," are contradicted by most independent assessments, to which the White House would never dare listen. Furthermore, it provides yet another example of how detached from reality Bush and his minions in Iraq truly are. There is a simple reason most US soldiers aren't just out there chewing the fat with Iraqi "civilians," chatting about how great democracy is: Iraqis overwhelmingly do not want US troops there. "[Iraqis] aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution," veteran war correspondent Robert Fisk recently said. "The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy." Furthermore, Sunni Arab Tikrit, where the soldiers sat during the videoconference, is almost certain to vote a resounding "No" on the US-backed constitution.

And herein lies one of the big farces of Bush's videoconference and the broader narrative the president needs so desperately to be true. The fact is that Washington will never be able to manufacture a multi-ethnic Iraqi military that is somehow going to deliver or enforce "democracy American style" in time for the US to withdraw from the bloody, sinking ship that is the Iraq occupation. The "declare victory and run" option has been gaining steam in Washington as the popularity of the occupation plummets and with key US elections on the horizon. The point of the videoconference appears to have been part of a major White House PR blitz to convince Americans that the Iraqi forces are really taking control of the situation on the ground. Here are just a few of the remarks from the videoconference:

First Lieutenant Gregg Murphy: "But the important thing here is that the Iraqi army and the Iraqi security forces, they're ready, and they're committed. They're going to make this thing happen."

Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo: "I can tell you over the past 10 months we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. We've been working side-by-side, training and equipping 18 Iraqi army battalions. Since we began our partnership, they have improved greatly, and they continue to develop and grow into sustainable forces. Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

President Bush: "The American people have got to know -- and I appreciate you bringing that up, Sergeant Major, about how -- what the progress is like. In other words, we've got a measurement system."

Captain Steven Pratt: "The Iraqi army and police services, along with coalition support, have conducted many and multiple exercises and rehearsals...Along with the coalition's backing them, we'll have a very successful and effective referendum vote."

Captain Dave Smith: "Sir, our Iraqi partners have been conducting battalion and Brigade-size operations since April. They have been planning and coordinating with other Iraqi security forces, such as the Iraqi police and local government agencies, preparing for this referendum. Sir, we as coalition forces, we have taken a supporting role only as they prepare to execute this referendum."

At no point during the teleconference did Bush or the soldiers mention that US troop levels in Iraq have been significantly increasing, not decreasing, in recent weeks. There are now more than 156,000 US troops in country. Nor did Bush mention that, according to his own top commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, there is just one Iraqi battalion capable of fighting on its own. Moreover, Bush's portrayal of the readiness of this new, multi-ethnic dream army is proved false by simply reading accounts from major news organizations.

Tom Lasseter from the Knight Ridder news agency recently spent a week on patrol with "a crack unit of the Iraqi army - the 4,500-member 1st Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Division." He reports that, "Instead of rising above the ethnic tension that's tearing their nation apart, the mostly Shiite troops are preparing for, if not already fighting, a civil war against the minority Sunni population." That unit is responsible for security in Sunni areas of Baghdad and Lasseter reports "they're seeking revenge against the Sunnis who oppressed them during Saddam Hussein's rule." He quotes Shiite Army Major Swadi Ghilan saying he wants to kill most Sunnis in Iraq. "There are two Iraqs; it's something that we can no longer deny," Ghilan said. "The army should execute the Sunnis in their neighborhoods so that all of them can see what happens, so that all of them learn their lesson."

While Bush needs this referendum to find something positive to say about the miserable occupation, according to Lasseter's report, "Many of the Shiite officers and soldiers said they look forward to the constitution and December elections for a different reason. They want a permanent, Shiite-dominated government that will finally allow them to steamroll much of the Sunni minority, some 20 percent of the nation and the backbone of the insurgency." Lasseter describes the 1st Brigade, which is held up by US commanders as a template for the future of Iraq's military, like this: "They look and operate less like an Iraqi national army unit and more like a Shiite militia."

This, however, is of little concern to Bush. What is unfolding in Iraq now is a push to give the appearance of a visionary plan, of US soldiers simply advising, training and instructing the commanders of the new democratic, human rights-loving, multi-ethnic Iraqi army. It is what Noam Chomsky calls a "necessary illusion." The videoconference in Tikrit was a crude evolution in the kind of propaganda Iraqi's have lived with for years. But this time, the target audience was in the US.
http://tinyurl.com/dsxg5

[W*GS]

Only the right-wing extremists, religio-crazies, and NRA knuckledraggers who constitute Bush's hardcore base still remain in denial (and even some of these people are saying "enough is enough.")

Sigh.

So what are you doing to oppose Bush's supporters other than name-calling here on the OM?

Tell all of us what you're doing for real - as opposed to the stuff you post here, which counts for absolutely zero.

[Pat Bowlen]

The way he posts it wouldn't suprise me if he didn't have dozens of Republican corpses in his basement.

[Rohirrim]

Sigh.

So what are you doing to oppose Bush's supporters other than name-calling here on the OM?

Tell all of us what you're doing for real - as opposed to the stuff you post here, which counts for absolutely zero.

I take it you have no opinion regarding Bush's dog and pony show?

[W*GS]

I take it you have no opinion regarding Bush's dog and pony show?

Gee, stage-managing a "video-op" so it makes the politician look good is sinister and appalling, and something we've never seen until this particularly odious President took office, right?

[bendog]

WJC always looked sheepish when he want out to the military. He knew they hated him, and he wore the hat or jacket, but he seemed ..... humbled/shamed to the extent he could be those things.

I think what irritates people about bushii is that his whole military rah rah is total bull****, but he simply lacks the self criticism ability to know it, and plays the happy cowboy. It's sort of sad how the young guys in the military buy into it, but vietnam was a long time ago, and all that's really passing for fact today about those days is bull****.

[Rigs11]

I take it you have no opinion regarding Bush's dog and pony show?

WIGGED continually defends Dubya anytime anyone questions his incomptence by stating that others have done it too. He's a sheep who uses the copout by questioning why others come into a political forum and state how unhappy they are with this goverment. I mean the nerve of people to come into a forum and state how the feel. Uhh

[Play2win]

It's sad, George W Bush is living in the past, and he's taking the whole country there with him...

[patteeu]

WJC always looked sheepish when he want out to the military. He knew they hated him, and he wore the hat or jacket, but he seemed ..... humbled/shamed to the extent he could be those things.

I think what irritates people about bushii is that his whole military rah rah is total bull****, but he simply lacks the self criticism ability to know it, and plays the happy cowboy. It's sort of sad how the young guys in the military buy into it, but vietnam was a long time ago, and all that's really passing for fact today about those days is bull****.

Yes, it's a shame the self-hatred and cynicism that many took from the Vietnam war doesn't ride high in the minds of our young soldiers. ::)

[bendog]

Well it's a shame they cheer a guy who took a pass so people better, and poorer, than him got killed and had parts blown off. Your hatred is sad.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WIGGED continually defends Dubya anytime anyone questions his incomptence by stating that others have done it too. He's a sheep who uses the copout by questioning why others come into a political forum and state how unhappy they are with this goverment. I mean the nerve of people to come into a forum and state how the feel. Uhh

Bingo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WJC always looked sheepish when he want out to the military. He knew they hated him, and he wore the hat or jacket, but he seemed ..... humbled/shamed to the extent he could be those things.

I think what irritates people about bushii is that his whole military rah rah is total bull****, but he simply lacks the self criticism ability to know it, and plays the happy cowboy. It's sort of sad how the young guys in the military buy into it, but vietnam was a long time ago, and all that's really passing for fact today about those days is bull****.

At least Clinton consciously chose to leave himself exposed to the draft - even when he had an offer to join ROTC (hence avoiding Viet Nam.)

The court-appointed pinhead did just the opposite, i.e., made sure his chances of going to Viet Nam were zero.

As for the troops buying into the Kennebunkport Cowboy's phony "war president" image, it's just one aspect of an even bigger con job, i.e., that the republicans care more about the military than the Dems.

Memo to the troops: The republicans care about $$$ for Big Arms - not you.

They care about expensive weapons systems (often of questionable worth) that will line the pockets of their defense industry cronies and donors - not the soldiers and grunts on the front lines.

They care about profits for Hallibuton its stockholders - not you.

Why do you think they sent you into Iraq in insufficient numbers and with insufficient armor and equipment? Why do you think they tried to cut your combat pay? Why do you think they keep slashing the VA budget so you won't get the care that was promised to you when you get out?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cheney's Stock Options at $9.2M

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reiterated his call for Cheney to forfeit his continuing financial interest in Halliburton, in light of the surging value of Cheney's Halliburton holdings. He continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, now worth $9,214,154.93 (as of Sept 14)

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so does the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from this administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for Cheney to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it."

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/%7Elautenberg/press/2003/01/2005915804.html

"Unseemly?"

"Unseemly" has to be the euphemism of the year, Senator Lautenberg.

"War profiteering" is the phrase you're looking for.

[Play2win]

Cheney's Stock Options at $9.2M

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reiterated his call for Cheney to forfeit his continuing financial interest in Halliburton, in light of the surging value of Cheney's Halliburton holdings. He continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, now worth $9,214,154.93 (as of Sept 14)

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so does the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from this administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for Cheney to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it."

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/%7Elautenberg/press/2003/01/2005915804.html

"Unseemly?"

"Unseemly" has to be the euphemism of the year, Senator Lautenberg.

"War profiteering" is the phrase you're looking for.
Just Someone please tell me how this is not CONFLICT OF INTEREST...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Just Someone please tell me how this is not CONFLICT OF INTEREST...

It's not just a blatant conflict of interest - it's war profiteering, plain and simple.

For Injured U.S. Troops, 'Financial Friendly Fire'

Maimed troops now face financial ruin in Bush’s America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101302166_pf.html

By Donna St. George
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 14, 2005; A01

His hand had been blown off in Iraq, his body pierced by shrapnel. He could not walk. Robert Loria was flown home for a long recovery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he tried to bear up against intense physical pain and reimagine his life's possibilities.

The last thing on his mind, he said, was whether the Army had correctly adjusted his pay rate -- downgrading it because he was out of the war zone -- or whether his combat gear had been accounted for properly: his Kevlar helmet, his suspenders, his rucksack.

But nine months after Loria was wounded, the Army garnished his wages and then, as he prepared to leave the service, hit him with a $6,200 debt. That was just before last Christmas, and several lawmakers scrambled to help. This spring, a collection agency started calling. He owed another $646 for military housing.

"I was shocked," recalled Loria, now 28 and medically retired from the Army. "After everything that went on, they still had the nerve to ask me for money."

Although Loria's problems may be striking on their own, the Army has recently identified 331 other soldiers who have been hit with military debt after being wounded at war. The new analysis comes as the United States has more wounded troops than at any time since the Vietnam War, with thousands suffering serious injury in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"This is a financial friendly fire," charged Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, which has been looking into the issue. "It's awful." Davis called the failure systemic and said military "pay problems have been an embarrassment all the way through" the war.

Continued at link...

[Pat Bowlen]

Gee, stage-managing a "video-op" so it makes the politician look good is sinister and appalling, and something we've never seen until this particularly odious President took office, right?
It would be more difficult to despise you if you just came out and agreed that it's a pretty sad story. There'd be no shame in it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It would be more difficult to despise you if you just came out and agreed that it's a pretty sad story. There'd be no shame in it.

Indeed.

However, it's abundantly clear that W*GS suffers from some strange defect of character or reason which prevents him grasping fundamental ethical principles like "two wrongs don't make a right."

(Which would explain his tenacious compulsion to deflect all criticism of an ethically-challenged administration like Team Thug.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gee, stage-managing a "video-op" so it makes the politician look good is sinister and appalling, and something we've never seen until this particularly odious President took office, right?

Heh heh heh! :laugh:

When it comes to covering for this corrupt, inept administration and minimizing its crimes, you can count on The O'W*GS Factor to be there right until the bitter end.

Let's dispense with his silly right-wing spin straight away:

#1. The stage-managed event in question goes WAY beyond a mere effort to make a politician "look good." The event was yet another attempt by Team Thug to manipulate public perception and opinion of a war which has hitherto claimed the lives of almost 2,000 American service men and women and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. A war which has drained the nation's coffers to the tune of a half a trillion dollars and counting. This stage-managed event was an effort to mislead the American people about the reality of the situation in Iraq.

#2. Name another administration whose use of photo-ops, fake news, staged rallies and other events even begins to approximate the same degree, frequency and scale as the bush misadministration. Please provide specific examples.

#3. Name another administration about whom this can be said:

GAO: Bush Team Broke Law With 'Covert Propaganda'

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219925

By E&P Staff

Published: September 30, 2005

NEW YORK The Bush Administration violated laws prohibiting the use of covert propaganda when it secretly paid broadcaster/ columnist Armstrong Williams to promote its education policies, and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said Friday.

Williams received about $240,000 from the federal Department of Education. Tribune Media Services dropped Williams' syndicated column in January when it learned about the payments.

In its account Saturday, The New York Times said the report "provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities....In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated 'covert propaganda' in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."


The administration has used your tax dollars to pay for fake news and propaganda.

Name another administration which has done this.

And keep in mind that Armstrong Williams isn't the only instance.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This just in:

Key Participant in Bush Scripted, Rehearsed PR Stunt with GIs in Iraq was Actually a Military PR Spokesperson, Not a Regular Grunt. She was a "Ringer," Put in Place to Appear as a Regular GI, When She Is Actually a Pentagon Shill.

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/10/media-no-longer-taking-flak.html

Reporting on yesterday's Bush-Iraq video-op, the Village Voice's Ward Harkavy finds that it involved an actor from within his own sausage factory. "The soldier on the left side of the front row was actually a flak herself, though she didn't reveal it during the regime's 24-minute infomercial."

The soldier in question is Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo; she works in public affairs for the military as spokesperson to the media. While she's emerged elsewhere in mainstream reports on Iraq, she hasn't always been identified in her role.

A New York Times' story from April correctly cited Lombardo as a "military spokesperson." Another report in the Albany Times-Union merely cited her as a "24-year Guard veteran." In his report, Times-Union scribe Tim O'Brien quoted Lombardo extensively as she praised the hard work of her division and drew special attention to their successful cooperation with local forces to "rebuild Iraqi infrastructure."

http://www.42id.army.mil/newsstory/2%20IA%20Graduation.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/international/middleeast/01cnd-iraq.html?ex=1270011600&en=63237a11b3b 8440d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/07/find-flak.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This just in:

Key Participant in Bush Scripted, Rehearsed PR Stunt with GIs in Iraq was Actually a Military PR Spokesperson, Not a Regular Grunt. She was a "Ringer," Put in Place to Appear as a Regular GI, When She Is Actually a Pentagon Shill.

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/10/media-no-longer-taking-flak.html

Reporting on yesterday's Bush-Iraq video-op, the Village Voice's Ward Harkavy finds that it involved an actor from within his own sausage factory. "The soldier on the left side of the front row was actually a flak herself, though she didn't reveal it during the regime's 24-minute infomercial."

The soldier in question is Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo; she works in public affairs for the military as spokesperson to the media. While she's emerged elsewhere in mainstream reports on Iraq, she hasn't always been identified in her role.

A New York Times' story from April correctly cited Lombardo as a "military spokesperson." Another report in the Albany Times-Union merely cited her as a "24-year Guard veteran." In his report, Times-Union scribe Tim O'Brien quoted Lombardo extensively as she praised the hard work of her division and drew special attention to their successful cooperation with local forces to "rebuild Iraqi infrastructure."

http://www.42id.army.mil/newsstory/2%20IA%20Graduation.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/international/middleeast/01cnd-iraq.html?ex=1270011600&en=63237a11b3b 8440d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/07/find-flak.html


Pretty embarrassing for our country and the troops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MistrSynistr]

Sigh.

So what are you doing to oppose Bush's supporters other than name-calling here on the OM?

Tell all of us what you're doing for real - as opposed to the stuff you post here, which counts for absolutely zero.

Oh, the irony. Ha!

[W*GS]

Oh, the irony. Ha!

I reasonably regularly write my Congresscritter and Colorado's two senators about various political issues. I've donated time and effort to various political causes (primarily ballot issues). I belonged to the Libertarian Party.

Let's see if you or LABF can tell us, honestly, something similar. I greatly doubt LABF can.

[Pat Bowlen]

You could have held bake-sales for the Nazi party, too. Just because you're a more active political nutcase than somebody else doesn't mean you're necessarily on the right side.

[bronco_diesel]

You could have held bake-sales for the Nazi party, too. Just because you're a more active political nutcase than somebody else doesn't mean you're necessarily on the right side.

that is true. however, i believe the point is, his efforts amount to more than just rhetoric on a message board. if people are so passionate about a stance, why not put a little action behind the words - and why not speak up about said efforts when challenged on them....

[W*GS]

You could have held bake-sales for the Nazi party, too.

How nice.

Just because you're a more active political nutcase than somebody else doesn't mean you're necessarily on the right side.

Define the "right side".

Thanks.

Oh, and also define "political nutcase". I'm sure your political opinions are far from nutty, aren't they?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh, the irony. Ha!

Not to mention the usual W*GS deflection.

He was busted in his attempt to defend Bush's little fake soldier infomercial, and now he's deflecting by "controversializing the accuser" (a Rovian tactic if there ever was one.)

[W*GS]

WIGGED continually defends Dubya anytime anyone questions his incomptence by stating that others have done it too.

Since Bush is acting in ways that are typical of politicians generally, then if you have some consistency in your ideology (which, I daresay, you do not), then you'll take all politicians to task. Bush is often the easiest target, but if he's your only target, then either (a) you're just a Bush-basher and can be readily dismissed; or (b) your political sophistication and maturity hasn't developed sufficiently. Leave the OM for a few years and do some reading.

He's a sheep who uses the copout by questioning why others come into a political forum and state how unhappy they are with this goverment. I mean the nerve of people to come into a forum and state how the feel.

I'm not terribly interested in feelings that are unsupported by facts and/or do not have a consistent ideological basis.

[Rigs11]

Since Bush is acting in ways that are typical of politicians generally, then if you have some consistency in your ideology (which, I daresay, you do not), then you'll take all politicians to task. Bush is often the easiest target, but if he's your only target, then either (a) you're just a Bush-basher and can be readily dismissed; or (b) your political sophistication and maturity hasn't developed sufficiently. Leave the OM for a few years and do some reading.

Of course he's the easiest target genius, he's the CURRENT president.I'm sure even Dubya realizes this. If you wanna keep blaming past politicians instead of the ones who are currently in office go right ahead. Leave the 1900's behind and join the present.




I'm not terribly interested in feelings that are unsupported by facts and/or do not have a consistent ideological basis.

Then why do you continue to post here?

[W*GS]

Of course he's the easiest target genius, he's the CURRENT president.I'm sure even Dubya realizes this. If you wanna keep blaming past politicians instead of the ones who are currently in office go right ahead. Leave the 1900's behind and join the present.
I get it - the world was perfect until Bush took office, or, history was a tabula rasa until that day. Everything that's wrong is entirely his fault, and nothing has any antecdents before that day back in January of 2001. There are no causes - it's all a matter of Bush being a poophead. Thanks for clarifying your views for me.

Do you even think before you post?

Then why do you continue to post here?
It's amusing to watch you and others flop around.

[Rigs11]

I get it - the world was perfect until Bush took office, or, history was a tabula rasa until that day. Everything that's wrong is entirely his fault, and nothing has any antecdents before that day back in January of 2001. There are no causes - it's all a matter of Bush being a poophead. Thanks for clarifying your views for me.

Do you even think before you post?


It's amusing to watch you and others flop around.


Do you read before you post?Again let me clarify it for someone with your IQ level. He is the current president. Got it? We bitch about stuff that HE has done and is still doing. Got it?You on the other hand let him slide on everything because past politicians have done it. It's ludicrous and rather silly.The only time we flop around is when we're laughing at your ridiculous posts.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Of course he's the easiest target genius, he's the CURRENT president.

:laugh:

You'd think that after five years W*GS would have figured this out.

You on the other hand let him slide on everything because past politicians have done it. It's ludicrous and rather silly.

Indeed.

Silly because Johnny One-Note's standard "two wrongs make a right" argument is so patently absurd, and silly because his generalizations invariably fail to take degree and scale into account when comparing examples of past corruption or incompetence to the record established by the present administration.



The only time we flop around is when we're laughing at your ridiculous posts.

They are good for a laugh. :laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Since Bush is acting in ways that are typical of politicians generally, then if you have some consistency in your ideology (which, I daresay, you do not), then you'll take all politicians to task.

rofl

You're a one-man hypocrisy generating machine.

You relish taking Clinton and other Democrats to task, but you consistently give Bush and the repubs a free pass. You jump at any chance to find fault with Clinton, but when Bush is under fire, you go to great lengths to deflect criticism and to defend the dry drunk.

And you have the audacity to lecture others about "consistency?"

:laugh:

[patteeu]

Pretty embarrassing for our country and the troops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's embarassing that they picked someone with a little media savvy to participate? I don't think so. Now if someone from the WH had put on a military uniform and pretended to be a soldier, THAT would be something. But that's not what happened. The only thing embarassing here is the reaction you lefties are having.

[patteeu]

Cheney's Stock Options at $9.2M

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reiterated his call for Cheney to forfeit his continuing financial interest in Halliburton, in light of the surging value of Cheney's Halliburton holdings. He continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, now worth $9,214,154.93 (as of Sept 14)

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so does the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from this administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for Cheney to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it."

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/%7Elautenberg/press/2003/01/2005915804.html

"Unseemly?"

"Unseemly" has to be the euphemism of the year, Senator Lautenberg.

"War profiteering" is the phrase you're looking for.


Just Someone please tell me how this is not CONFLICT OF INTEREST...

I'd be glad to. As with much of what LABF posts, this is false. Cheney doesn't stand to gain from Haliburton stock increases because he has executed a gift trust that is ""irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended." Any gain will go to charity. Cheney stands to gain nothing according to factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html).

You've got to read LABF's posts with a skeptical eye. Most of his posts are composed of weak spin, outright lies, and ignorant misinterpretations.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You've got to read LABF's posts with a skeptical eye. Most of his posts are composed of weak spin, outright lies, and ignorant misinterpretations.

Only to a member of that rapidly-shrinking, Kool-Aid-impaired minority who is still buying into Team Smirk & Sneer's lies.

The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations.

However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Chene..._last_1011.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's embarassing that they picked someone with a little media savvy to participate?

:stupid:

Talk about typical right-wing spin.

The woman in question isn't simply "someone with a little media savvy."

The woman is Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo. She works in public affairs for the military as spokesperson to the media.

The WH tried to pass her off as just another soldier in the dry drunk's fake Iraq infomercial.

The only thing embarassing here is the reaction you lefties are having.

rofl

The embarrassing thing here is that you are still defending this latest BushCo hoax when even the MSM has exposed it as a phony, scripted event.

Your capacity for denial is simply astounding.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's embarassing that they picked someone with a little media savvy to participate? I don't think so. Now if someone from the WH had put on a military uniform and pretended to be a soldier, THAT would be something. But that's not what happened. The only thing embarassing here is the reaction you lefties are having.
Is it embarrassing that the military doesn't approve of these "scripted" propaganda stints either?

"Officers are upset that military people would be coached as to how to talk to the president," said a senior military official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's against everything that people in uniform stand for."

You sound like you might agree with a communist government ideals on propaganda. That's what you've basically said here.

[Pat Bowlen]

You guys are ridiculous. Just admit that it's not all black and white already.

LABF, he's apparently got you burned on the Cheney accusations, I wasn't aware of that fact.

Patteeu, for the life of me I can't comprehend why anybody wouldn't say that something like this, a blatantly staged 'teleconference" with the troops, was an insult to the country's intelligence and a pathetic thing to do for a president/administration.

Just discuss the issue without becoming such partisan freaks.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, he's apparently got you burned on the Cheney accusations, I wasn't aware of that fact.

How do you figure?

You must have missed the fact that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities.

Cheney got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities, based on the value of the options at that time. Later fluctuations in the value of Halliburton stock have no impact on the deductions he took at that time.

And perhaps you missed the fact that Cheney lied when he said he no longer had any financial ties with Halliburton.

Dick Cheney has been in a revolving door between the private sector and the government for over a decade, and each time he walks from one sector to the other he uses his influence or authority from the one to make money in the other. Why else would he hold on to those stock options rather than divest himself of them as is usually done and as is a requirement of the ethics process?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So if he so chooses he can walk right back into a healthy Halliburton or KBR when he's out of office after having shepherded the largest ever no-bid contracts to them for eight years. And if doesn't want to go back, well -- he's got all those great stock options from eight years of no-bid contracts he can exercise. He'll get his money under the table or in a quid pro quo, for instance in the form of a future job with Halliburton.

Did I mention the no-bid contracts?

Dick Cheney hasn't given his stock options to charity. He was forced (after political pressure was put on him) to donate the after-tax profits from said options while he was in office. The value of those options are growing and growing and growing and will be ginormously valuable in the future.

Here's how it all started. This is just the beginning of the chronology and doesn't even get to the good part where Cheney commits treason in doing business with Iraq and Iran while it was forbidden under sanctions. Oh wait, it does touch on the sale of materials to Libya that would have allowed it to detonate the nuclear weapons of mass destruction...that it actually possessed:

"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States" - Richard Cheney1

1992

Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world. Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.2

1995

Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services companies in the world. He will be chairman of the company from 1996 to October 1998 and from February to August 2000. Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors. The company garners $2.3 billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it earned from the government previously. Most of the contracts are granted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.3 Halliburton's overseas operations go from 51% to 68% of its revenue. According to the Center for Public Integrity,4 under Cheney's leadership the company also receives $1.5 billion worth of assistance from government-sponsored agencies such as OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and the Export-Import Bank, a huge increase compared to the $100 million that the company had received in federal loans and guarantees in the five years prior to Cheney's arrival. Years later, during the 2000 campaign in a broadcasted vice presidential candidates' debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney asserts that "the government has absolutely nothing to do" with his financial success as chairman of Halliburton Co.5 Halliburton pleads guilty to criminal charges of violating a U.S. ban on exports to Libya by selling Col. Qaddafi six pulse neutron generators, devices that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.6 Halliburton pays a $3.8 million penalty to settle alleged violations of the U.S. trade ban.7

Ah, those Republicans, so tough on terror except when it might hurt the bottom line. You can read the rest here, it's pretty fascinating:

http://tinyurl.com/6ysnj

[W*GS]

Do you read before you post?Again let me clarify it for someone with your IQ level. He is the current president. Got it? We b**** about stuff that HE has done and is still doing.

And "bitch" is about all you do.

As opposed to LABF, what are you doing in the real world to fix the problems Bush (and the other politicians who are either in cahoots with him or refuse to stand up to him) has created? "Bitch" on the OM doesn't count.

You on the other hand let him slide on everything because past politicians have done it.

I don't let Bush slide on anything - but I do apologize to you and your limited political knowledge by having criticisms more elevated than the "Bush is a poophead" level.

[W*GS]

You're a one-man hypocrisy generating machine.

Where's that expose on the Soros/Carlyle connection? What are the "correct" political views of Asians and African-Americans? What have you done in the real world to fix the problems Bush has created?

You relish taking Clinton and other Democrats to task, but you consistently give Bush and the repubs a free pass

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

But I expect that from you.

[W*GS]

Silly because Johnny One-Note's standard "two wrongs make a right" argument

I've never ever stated or implied that "two wrongs make a right". It's clear to everyone here, however, that your standard is "Bush and the GOP/right-wing wrong, Clinton and the Democrats/left-wing right". Plus, you've never explained how your Clinton-worship is consistent with your far-left radicalism. The genuine far-left despised Clinton; and he did any number of things that were diametrically opposed to the far-left ideology.

is so patently absurd, and silly because his generalizations invariably fail to take degree and scale into account when comparing examples of past corruption or incompetence to the record established by the present administration.

Let's see - Bush lied us into the war in Iraq - so far, about 2,000 Americans dead and some tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. JFK and LBJ lied us into a war in Vietnam - 58,000+ Americans dead and millions of Vietnamese dead. And the Communists took over South Vietnam anyway.

Bush is beholden to the Saudis. Clinton was so beholden that they "donated" millions to his library - what's the story there, anyway? And Carter promised them that the US would use nuclear weapons to protect them.

Bush has never cared about the genocide in the Sudan - Clinton never cared about the genocide in Rwanda. American politicians barely think about Africa at all.

Bush accepts millions from rich donors for his political campaigns. The Democrats accept tens of millions from George Soros for their political campaigns.

From my political point of view, a pox on both the GOP and the Democrats - there's not a whole lot of difference - they both readily trample our rights and screw things up whenever they can. Period.

[Rigs11]

And "b****" is about all you do.

As opposed to LABF, what are you doing in the real world to fix the problems Bush (and the other politicians who are either in cahoots with him or refuse to stand up to him) has created? "b****" on the OM doesn't count.



I don't let Bush slide on anything - but I do apologize to you and your limited political knowledge by having criticisms more elevated than the "Bush is a poophead" level.

This is a political internet board genius. I don't know you and I don't like you so stop acting like somehow you have the right to question what I do do in the real world. Your only "criticisms" of Dubya are to pardon him for every fackup he makes.

[MistrSynistr]

I've never ever stated or implied that "two wrongs make a right". It's clear to everyone here, however, that your standard is "Bush and the GOP/right-wing wrong, Clinton and the Democrats/left-wing right". Plus, you've never explained how your Clinton-worship is consistent with your far-left radicalism. The genuine far-left despised Clinton; and he did any number of things that were diametrically opposed to the far-left ideology.


...and that's when anyone with a mental capacity of processing information over the 4th grade level stops and re-reads that paragraph one more time, just to be sure...and realizes the sheer irony of it all.

The "atheist"/"libertarian" W*GS can't fathom why and how LABF could support someone like Clinton, who (as he says) is despised by LABF's "FAR-LEFT" views(views which if you actually read LABF's posts are just...the truth...ODD, isn't it? I guess facts are "FAR-LEFT" now...DAMN THOSE FACTS!) yet this character W*GS constantly promotes, sticks up for and pushes a ridiculous religious based right-wing agenda that's into BIG government, lies, deciet, elitism and the removal of people's civil liberties at everyturn.

Yikes! Sure defeats the atheist libertarian agenda now, doesn't it?
:stupid:

[MistrSynistr]

Note: Big words and cute little constructed paragraphs may constitute EDUCATION, but they don't necessarily imply INTELLIGENCE/and or EXPERIENCE. Something W*GS is obviously lacking. (You can throw logic into that bundle as well if you so choose.) :thumbs:

[MistrSynistr]

I reasonably regularly write my Congresscritter and Colorado's two senators about various political issues. I've donated time and effort to various political causes (primarily ballot issues). I belonged to the Libertarian Party.

Let's see if you or LABF can tell us, honestly, something similar. I greatly doubt LABF can.

Well, I don't know what LABF does for his "agenda"...But I shall admit I work for the Veteran's Affairs Administration in downtown D.C. across the park in front of the White House on Vermont Ave...and I've seen, read, and felt the deciet, lies, in-difference and ignorance this current administration has for our own soldiers as well as civilians. I didn't just magically 'come up' with a distaste for Bush one day because Democrats said: "he's bad". I used intelligence, logic, study of facts and experience of dealing with these people who currently run this government to come up with my decision, that yes, indeed, they are pieces of sh*t and don't give a rat's ass about you, I, and especially Ernie Iraqi. The last thing you're doing is helping America by promoting ANY of G.W.'s idealogies. This man and his cabinet scoff, laugh and belittle anyone not belonging to their "clique". And if they get found out? They just spin the truth until there's so many angles of mis-information that it's virtually impossible to combat it or find the truth.

All I ask is if you're TRULY a negative, mean-spirited evil individual who secretly wants the genocide of all 'muslims' and anyone who opposes a big-business facist style capitalistic society..just say so...you'll earn my respect far more than coming on here sounding educated but completely hiding, spinning, or just disregarding 'facts' so that YOUR TEAM WINS.

It's an outrage, really. :nono:

[W*GS]

This is a political internet board genius. I don't know you and I don't like you so stop acting like somehow you have the right to question what I do do in the real world.

OK - so the extent of your political activity is bitching about Bush on the OM. That's fine, but you'll be getting the political system you deserve - good and hard.

Your only "criticisms" of Dubya are to pardon him for every fackup he makes.

Do tell - give me a list of all the times I've congratulated Bush for one of his actions.

Thanks.

[W*GS]

...and that's when anyone with a mental capacity of processing information over the 4th grade level stops and re-reads that paragraph one more time, just to be sure...and realizes the sheer irony of it all.

I'm nowhere near as pro-Bush as LABF is pro-Clinton; as a libertarian, I despise both. However, I do recognize that the "Bush is a poophead" school of political thought is just plain dumb.

The "atheist"/"libertarian" W*GS

No quotes needed.

can't fathom why and how LABF could support someone like Clinton, who (as he says) is despised by LABF's "FAR-LEFT" views(views which if you actually read LABF's posts are just...the truth...ODD, isn't it? I guess facts are "FAR-LEFT" now...DAMN THOSE FACTS!)

Don't confuse the genuine facts and LABF's spin. He's a "Michael Moore Junior Agitprop" school of rhetoric - take quotes out of context, provide half-quotes, tell half-truths... A complete and accurate interpretation of some event only extremely rarely is in agreement with LABF's sound-bite version of it.

yet this character W*GS constantly promotes,

Show me where I've promoted Bush.

sticks up for


Show me where I've stuck up for Bush.

and pushes a ridiculous religious based right-wing agenda that's into BIG government, lies, deciet, elitism and the removal of people's civil liberties at everyturn.

Who pushes a "ridiculous religious based right-wing agenda"? Me? You've got to be joking. Bush - yes, to an extent. Note that the religious right hasn't gotten much from their support of Bush. They're not happy about it. Witness the whole Miers brouhaha.

As for removal of liberties - this administration is no worse in that regard than almost any of the last few, which is to say that the current crop believes our liberties are mere inconveniences to be gotten rid of in their quest for power. If you think Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc. didn't believe that, well, you're ignorant and naive.

[W*GS]

The last thing you're doing is helping America by promoting ANY of G.W.'s idealogies.

I don't promote them - but that depends on the issue in question. For example, on those few occasions in which Bush has supported freer trade, I agree with him.

All I ask is if you're TRULY a negative, mean-spirited evil individual who secretly wants the genocide of all 'muslims'

Hunh? I don't want genocide of anyone.

It's rather early in the day to be doing the kinds and quantities of drugs one would need to come up with this little gem.

and anyone who opposes a big-business facist style capitalistic society..

Capitalism is the antithesis of fascism.

just say so...you'll earn my respect far more than coming on here sounding educated but completely hiding, spinning, or just disregarding 'facts' so that YOUR TEAM WINS.

What's "my team"? And no, I don't hide, spin or disregard facts - I tend to be quite scrupulous in my use of them. Show me otherwise.

[patteeu]

Only to a member of that rapidly-shrinking, Kool-Aid-impaired minority who is still buying into Team Smirk & Sneer's lies.

More weak spin, outright lies, and ignorant misrepresentations I see.

From the same source I linked before (i.e. factcheck.org):

Shortly after [Dick Cheney denied having a "financial interest" in Haliburton on Tim Russert's Meet The Press program], Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.

Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More weak spin, outright lies, and ignorant misrepresentations I see.

Such is your ignorance that a re-post is obviously necessary:

The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations.

However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Chene..._last_1011.html

You were so busy peddling the right-wing spin you must have missed the fact that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities.

Cheney got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities, based on the value of the options at that time. Later fluctuations in the value of Halliburton stock have no impact on the deductions he took at that time.

And perhaps you missed the fact that Cheney lied when he said he no longer had any financial ties with Halliburton.

Dick Cheney has been in a revolving door between the private sector and the government for over a decade, and each time he walks from one sector to the other he uses his influence or authority from the one to make money in the other. Why else would he hold on to those stock options rather than divest himself of them as is usually done and as is a requirement of the ethics process?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is a political internet board genius. I don't know you and I don't like you so stop acting like somehow you have the right to question what I do do in the real world. Your only "criticisms" of Dubya are to pardon him for every fackup he makes.

Bingo.

How ironic is it that W*GS first works tirelessly to deflect BushCo criticism and to excuse those fvckups by Team Thug and then demands "solutions" from the very people who have advised against hiring Team Thug from the outset?

W*GS is like a child who ignores repeated warnings not to touch a hot stove from the grownups, and then blames the grownups when he gets burned.

The O'W*GS Factor could save a lot of time, energy, and bandwith (not to mention be more honest and direct) by simply condensing all his posts down to "don't criticize Dubya."

[W*GS]

The administration has used your tax dollars to pay for fake news and propaganda. Name another administration which has done this.

Name an administration that hasn't.

Remember the brouhaha back when Clinton was using TV shows to deliver his pro-War-on-Liberties (aka "The War on Drugs") propaganda?

Did you get peeved at your tax dollars being used, then, to subvert the truth and to propagandize the masses?

Or did you forget that whole sorry episode?

[W*GS]

[...] demands "solutions" from the very people who have advised against hiring Team Thug from the outset?

Pointing out problems is easy - well within your intellectual reach. Proposing solutions is not as easy - and well beyond your intellectual reach. As proven time and again.

The O'W*GS Factor could save a lot of time, energy, and bandwith (not to mention be more honest and direct) by simply condensing all his posts down to "don't criticize Dubya."

Condensing all your posts to their essentials is even easier: "Buck Fush".

The irony is that I have criticized Bush, amply, but since I go beyond "Bush is a poophead", you can't understand my critiques. Pity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've never ever stated or implied that "two wrongs make a right".

tsk tsk

Denial: Not just a river in Egypt.

"Two wrongs make a right" is the consistent leitmotif in all of your efforts to defend, deny, minimize, spin, and excuse the current administration's frauds, felonies and f_ckups.


It's clear to everyone here, however, that your standard is "Bush and the GOP/right-wing wrong, Clinton and the Democrats/left-wing right".

Whereas your standard is clearly "Bush and the right are above criticism and accountability" and "Clinton and the left are always fair game."

You resemble every Bush shill in the right-wing media in this respect.


Plus, you've never explained how your Clinton-worship is consistent with your far-left radicalism.

rofl

Only 39% of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling his job. Only 28% think the country is heading in the right direction.

According to your skewed, nutty, Kool-Aid impaired view of things, anyone who disagrees with this fringe minority is a "far-left radical."

And your attempt to construe a willingness to give Clinton credit where due as "Clinton worship" is simply the same kind of shameless, right-wing spin one would expect from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Liely.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/56p-disapprove.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/bad-tom-idea.jpg

[patteeu]

Such is your ignorance that a re-post is obviously necessary:



You were so busy peddling the right-wing spin you must have missed the fact that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities.

Cheney got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities, based on the value of the options at that time. Later fluctuations in the value of Halliburton stock have no impact on the deductions he took at that time.

And perhaps you missed the fact that Cheney lied when he said he no longer had any financial ties with Halliburton.

Dick Cheney has been in a revolving door between the private sector and the government for over a decade, and each time he walks from one sector to the other he uses his influence or authority from the one to make money in the other. Why else would he hold on to those stock options rather than divest himself of them as is usually done and as is a requirement of the ethics process?


I won't bother reposting the direct refutation of your post from factcheck.org (see posts 41 and 58 if you are interested). The bottom line is that the "financial interest" on which you hang your hat doesn't rise to the level of an improper conflict of interest as defined by federal regulations. Cheney's answer on Meet the Press was perfectly reasonable (as opposed to being the lie you claim it was) in that light. Cheney stands to gain nothing from increases in Haliburton's stock price. You're just upset because I caught you in another one of your attempts to spin, lie, and misrepresent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cheney's answer on Meet the Press was perfectly reasonable (as opposed to being the lie you claim it was) in that light.

:bs:

You just don't learn, do you?

#1. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities.

CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

#2. Cheney got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities, based on the value of the options at that time. Later fluctuations in the value of Halliburton stock have no impact on the deductions he took at that time.


Cheney stands to gain nothing from increases in Haliburton's stock price.

:bs:

Cheney already got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities.

If he really wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict, then why didn't he divest himself of the stocks to begin with? That would have been the ethical thing to do.

And if you honestly don't believe Cheney is going to benefit quid pro quo from increases in the stock price then you're either extremely naive, still drinking the Kool-Aid, or unfamiliar with Cheney's history of exploiting the revolving door between the private sector and the government.

My guess would be all three.

You're just upset because I caught you in another one of your attempts to spin, lie, and misrepresent.

And then you woke up.

[patteeu]

:bs:

You just don't learn, do you?

#1. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities.

CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

#2. Cheney got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities, based on the value of the options at that time. Later fluctuations in the value of Halliburton stock have no impact on the deductions he took at that time.



:bs:

Cheney already got a tax deduction at the time he assigned the rights to the options to the charities.

If he really wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict, then why didn't he divest himself of the stocks to begin with? That would have been the ethical thing to do.

And if you honestly don't believe Cheney is going to benefit quid pro quo from increases in the stock price then you're either extremely naive, still drinking the Kool-Aid, or unfamiliar with Cheney's history of exploiting the revolving door between the private sector and the government.

My guess would be all three.



And then you woke up.

Keep repeating the same old arguments. They don't get better with repetition and they've already been dealt with. I smell desperation. :drown:

[W*GS]

"Two wrongs make a right" is the consistent leitmotif in all of your efforts to defend, deny, minimize, spin, and excuse the current administration's frauds, felonies and f_ckups.

You've given a list of five actions I've allegedly taken - provide evidence of all five.

Thanks.

Whereas your standard is clearly "Bush and the right are above criticism and accountability" and "Clinton and the left are always fair game."

Wrong.

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=30170
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=27323
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=26942
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=25983
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=27141
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=29595
http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=31669

Every time you accuse me of being a Bush supporter, the more wrong you are.

Only 39% of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling his job. Only 28% think the country is heading in the right direction.

I'm well within both groups.

Put that in your (well-used) Al Gore Memorial Pipe and smoke that!

According to your skewed, nutty, Kool-Aid impaired view of things, anyone who disagrees with this fringe minority is a "far-left radical."

Wrong. Your own rhetoric belies you as a far-left radical. There's no need to reference the American public - you're part of the anti-Bush group, true (as am I) but your stance is far to the left of the American center. That is, when it comes across relatively consistently - sometimes your views wander all over the political map.

In any case, it's safe to say that your "Dim Son", "boy king", "smirking sociopath", "BFEE" rhetoric would have the support of only a tiny fraction of the citizenry. But, you hang out with those folks so much that you think you're part of a larger group. I'll clue you in - you're not.

And your attempt to construe a willingness to give Clinton credit where due as "Clinton worship"

I've never seen you criticize a single act of Clinton's - his push and signing of NAFTA, his signing of the DMA (which directly contradicts your alleged support of gay marriage), his (cynical) signing of the CDA... Indeed, as a left-wing radical, you ought to despise all those actions. Why don't you?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Keep repeating the same old arguments.

Perhaps repetition is the key to comprehension for you.

They don't get better with repetition and they've already been dealt with.

"Dealt with" = deflected.

I smell desperation. :drown:

I smell denial. :pity:

But keep on dodging and deflecting. When you're a Smirk & Sneer supporter, this is the only "strategery" you have left.