Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Rick Santorum's claim of finding WMDs is just more false propaganda.

Posted By: PK on 2006-06-22
In Reply to:

(I can't understand why they must keep lying.)


Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq


Thursday, June 22, 2006; A10


Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.


We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons, Santorum said.


The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.


The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.


Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.



-- Dafna Linzer


© 2006 The Washington Post Company



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Senator Santorum
Senator Santorum said if gay marriage is allowed, it will lead to bestiality!!!!  Now that is one sick mind..How can anyone equate two humans loving each other with bestiality?  Crazy times in crazy America.
Yes, Santorum apparently has own sexual repression as well
He apparently would like a threesome. Below is the transcript from when Santorum was on Imus's show the other day:

Santorum: Did your wife tell you that she called me the other day?
Imus: She didn't.

Santorum: She didn't?

Imus: No, what about the autism thing?
Santorum: Well she called and the first thing she said to me was you know Suzanne Wright? I said sure and then she says, well I'd like to do a threesome.

What? (Imus stopped cold in his boots)
Imus: I think she meant a conference call.
Conservative Santorum - a flip flopper?

 


Group accuses Santorum of switch
Conservative association says senator made '180-degree turn' on intelligent design





By Lauri Lebo
Daily Record/Sunday News











Dec 25, 2005 — A conservative organization that touts itself as a supporter of traditional values blasted Sen. Rick Santorum for his withdrawal of support for the Dover Area School District's unconstitutional intelligent design policy.

Senator Rick Santorum's agreement with Judge John Jones' decision ... is yet another example of why conservatives can no longer trust the senator, the American Family Association of Pennsylvania said in a news release Friday.

The association's president, Diane Gramley, said Santorum - who is expected to face a tough re-election challenge next year from state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. - should heed her organization's remarks.

It's a warning that he needs to be careful, Gramley said. That he's beginning to lose his conservative base.

A year ago today, an editorial by Santorum praising Dover's intelligent design policy appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I commend the Dover Area School District for taking a stand and refusing to ignore the controversy, he wrote.

Dover school officials were so pleased that they printed the piece in a newsletter sent out to district residents.

But last week, one day after Judge John E. Jones III sharply criticized former Dover board members and ruled that intelligent design could not be included in the science curriculum as unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by former board member's actions.

Jones, in a strongly worded decision, left no doubt that he believed board members lied under oath in order to cover up their motivations - getting religion into science class.

Gramley criticized Santorum for changing his position.

He's almost made a 180-degree turn on this issue, she said.

In August, after President Bush said he supported teaching intelligent design in science class, Santorum said he didn't agree.

Rather, he said he supports teaching the controversy over evolutionary theory.

As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution, the Pennsylvania senator said during an NPR interview in August.

But in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article, Santorum wrote that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.

Gramley said Santorum's change of view is an indication that he may be diverting from his conservative positions, in order to court more moderate voters.

Santorum also said he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the Dover policy in the lawsuit.

Santorum could not be reached for comment Friday.

http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3342145



Well gee, let's see...do we believe there were WMDs in Iraq?
Do we believe Bush was actually elected by the American public in 2000 or 2004? Do we believe terrorists lurk in every street here in America? Do we believe our troops have been given the best equipment with which to do their jobs? Do we believe Repubs want to fix Social Security? Do we believe Jeff Gannon was an accredited reporter?

Well, looks like you're going to have to find another explanation for yourself - we're obviously not believing everything we hear and apparently aren't half as gullible as you.
WMDs were found in Iraq...



WMDs Were Found In Iraq


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarti...x?id=15918

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01837.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006...414-3312r/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/...60123.aspx

Saddam was a threat to his own people and people of the world. Here is a list of what he did.

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish

Panjwin Mustard October-November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish

Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500 Iranians

al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians

Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians

al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians

Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians

al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians

Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians

Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian

al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians

Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians

Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians

South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians

an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known


The truth about WMDs in Iraq...

http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2008/01/truth_about_wmd_in_iraq_uncove_1.php


CBS' Sixty Minutes devoted most of its Sunday program to one revealing story, an account of the remarkably productive seven month long interrogation of Saddam Hussein by FBI agent George Piro, an Arabic speaking American of Lebanese descent. According to the way the story was handled on the air and in the CBS online account of it, as well as the way the international press picked it up, the big news was that Saddam got rid of his WMD in the 1990s, but refused to prove it--even when threatened by U.S. attack. The reasons, he said, were that he feared revealing Iraq's weakness to its real enemy, Iran, and that he needed the perception of WMD to maintain his prestige at home. He also believed that the worst that President George W. Bush would do to him was to drop some bombs, the way President Clinton had done in 1998.


But that story, interesting as it might be, is not altogether new. Moreover, it does not compare to the golden news nugget lodged deep within the Sixty Minutes segment; namely, that Saddam expressly told Piro that he had planned to restart the WMD program in all phases--"chemical, biological and nuclear"--within a year after the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The 9/11 attacks and the reactions to them set back his plan, but didn't eliminate it.


This stated intention of Saddam constitutes fresh justification for the American-led invasion in 2003. Had the United States accepted the view that Iraq lacked WMD and no longer posed a threat, it would have been only a matter of time before new WMD efforts by Iraq were undertaken. And, once the West had stood down in 2003, the second round of WMD development would have been far harder to stop. By now--in 2008--Saddam could well have had the WMD he wanted all along. Iran, meanwhile, would have been given urgent incentive to move forward more quickly on its own WMD program. The Bush Administration knew all this, but now we have a report of Saddam himself confirming it.


There is little reason in this case to doubt either the veracity of Piro or the candor of Saddam. Certainly in its Sixty Minutes program, CBS and reporter Scott Pelley, demonstrate complete faith in Piro and the FBI reports. The FBI, says the CBS story, rates the Piro interrogation as one of the top achievements of the Bureau's past 100 years of existence. If, then, the Piro interrogation can be trusted, Saddam's plain statement that he had planned to construct WMD again also must be credited. In fact, it is credited in the Sixty Minutes program. However, it also is completely played down there, both in the program itself and in the CBS news account derived from it. The press stories that covered the program followed CBS' lead and lede. Most press stories that I found online omitted altogether Saddam's statements that he had always planned to restart his WMD program.


How could CBS News step on its own big story, and produce a minor story instead? Perhaps the answer is that for over five years now CBS and most Western media have followed the liberal party line has discounted President Bush's concerns about WMD, judging them either a deceit or a delusion. The American president was either malign ("Bush Lied, People DIed") or a dunce. As a third option, charitable interpreters on the left (and some on the right) have described Bush as sadly misinformed by his intelligence services and led to make the tragic mistake of invading Iraq. It took a long time, with day after day of news twists, but variations on these views finally suffused public opinion and persuaded a majority of Americans against the wisdom of the Iraq War. Who can doubt that those views are largely responsible for Bush's relatively low public approval ratings and his difficulty mobilizing public and Congressional support for prosecuting the war?


To showcase its program properly, Sixty Minutes would have led with something like this: "Revelations from a six month long FBI interrogation of Saddam Hussein conducted before his trial indicate that while the Iraqi dictator lacked weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American and Coalition attack in 2003, he fully intended to restart his WMD projects as soon as U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted. After months of elaborate interrogation by an Arabic speaking FBI agent, Saddam candidly acknowledged his plans. It would seem now that the US may well have had ample reason to attack Iraq, after all, though not for the exact reasons emphasized at the time."


Instead of that kind of news story, Scott Pelley leads Piro--an appealing, intelligent FBI agent of the kind that brings great credit to the bureau--on a somewhat rambling review of the extensive mental and emotional seduction of Saddam. Piro is presented as the FBI agent operationally in charge of Saddam's interrogation, but he clearly was part of a large team. The saga told on TV ruminates on such matters as Saddam's distrust of Osama bin Laden, the problems the FBI has finding Arabic speakers, and the terrible poetry Saddam wrote in prison and the way Piro flattered him about it. Then it turns finally to the gassing of the Kurds in 1998, a genocidal act for which Saddam told Piro he took personal responsibility and pronounced "necessary".


Only then does CBS have Pelley drop in this little handgrenade: "In fact, says Piro, Saddam intended to use weapons of mass destruction again someday.


"'Saddam had the engineers. The folks he needed to reconstruct his program were still there,'" FBI agent Piro reports.


"'That was his intention?'" asks Pelley.


"'Yes.'


"'What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?'


Answers Piro, "'He wanted pursue all of W.M.D. (sic)'


"'He wanted to reconstitute all of his W.M.D program--chemical, biological, even nuclear?'


"'Yes.'


And that is all there is of that!


As a matter of news judgment, I submit that if Saddam had told Piro that he really had no plans to start a new WMD program after the old one was dismantled, that would have been played up big by CBS and the mainstream media. But the fact that he said the opposite has been all but buried. The whole Piro interrogation of Saddam cries out for much more extensive coverage and maybe a Congressional hearing. Eventually, the whole story would make a fine documentary showing how the Iraq War, bad as it has been, probably spared Iraq and the world a much worse fate.


Meanwhile, even the conservative media seem to be missing the significance of this story. Most are simply ignoring the Piro interrogations altogether. The conservative online news service, NewsMax.com, does write about the CBS program, but mainly to take credit for having had it before CBS, citing an article from a new book by Ronald Kessler (The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, Crown Forum books). NewsMax relegates Saddam's stated intention to reconstruct his WMD program to a minor theme in its story, the major theme of which is the fascinating interrogation project itself.


Am I alone in recalling the weight put on the WMD issue when we invaded Iraq? I remember, in fact, thinking that the WMD threat should not have been forced to carry so much of the argument, since it was only one of several reasons to remove Saddam (e.g., his continued threats to his neighbors, his provocative attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush, his financial support of terrorism against Israel, his succor for assorted terrorists-on-the-lamb, and especially his many violations of the Gulf War truce terms). Most of these reasons, alone, would have constituted a justifiable casus belli. But, largely for diplomatic reasons at the United Nations, the threat of WMD was emphasized. Later, after the investigation, that threat seemed to be discredited and with in, in many eyes, the whole justification for the war.


I'll bet the FBI and its agent George Piro have very good knowledge and memories on the subject. So, undoubtedly, does George W. Bush.


Oh, please read this, Evil Clinton and WMDs, what?..........sm
NAFTA was built upon a 1989 trade agreement between the United States and Canada that eliminated or reduced many tariffs between the two countries. NAFTA called for immediately eliminating duties on half of all U.S. goods shipped to Mexico and gradually phasing out other tariffs over a period of about 14 years. Restrictions were to be removed from many categories, including motor vehicles and automotive parts, computers, textiles, and agriculture. The treaty also protected intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and outlined the removal of restrictions on investment among the three countries. Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1993.

In 1989 Gearge H.W. Bush was president, right???

The Congress of the United States narrowly approved NAFTA in November 1993, during the term of President Bill Clinton.

The most innovative yet controversial aspects of NAFTA are its environmental provisions, which are included in the agreement itself as well as in a separate Supplementary Agreement on the Environment. These provisions make NAFTA the most environmentally conscious trade agreement ever negotiated. The Supplementary Agreement established a Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), composed of senior environmental officials from each North American country. All three countries are prohibited from relaxing their environmental regulations in order to attract additional investment, and both citizens and governments are permitted to file complaints with the commission if they believe that a country is not enforcing

Is that not a good thing? Was it perfect, no, we wanted to open free trade four our countries; unfortunately, the GREEDY CEOs took advantage by moving production facilities overseas. The same GREEDY guys with the Golden parachutes that have flourished over the past two terms (and yes, even before that, but banking deregulation had so much more to do with this).

As for the WMDs, we brought in NATO, we went in with bipartisan group, we search with a multi-national group, and found none. Okay, you can hyposthesize all you want about HIDING THEM in other countries, anyone get any proof of this at all over the past eight years????? They are not too easy to hide, by the way, and Iraq has many enemies. I think that was the biggest RED HERRING in history to get over there, give Halliburton Billions in contracts without bids, and preserve our oil interests. There are horrible dictators in other countries, N. Korea has been threatening, taunting, and postulating, even testing weapons,,,,are we going there next for more trillions????
Finding a way to GET ALONG WITH other countries would
!
Rick Warren....(sm)
I really do understand Obama trying to be inclusive of all with the inauguration.  He has lined up a variety of artists, etc, which I think is a good idea.  However, Rick Warren....yeah, that would be the preacher that likened gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc.--- had a big role in Prop 8.  That's like inviting Charles Manson for dinner.  I just hope there's a deal in the background of this that I don't know about -- maybe something along the lines of Rick lightening up on the gay community in exchange for speaking at the inauguration. 
Another Rick at the naug

Is true that Rick James to appear at ball to play his song She a Superfreak so Mich and Bam can freak dance up and down their bodies? 


 


tnx for clarification. I am finding myself
in a confusing new world. All these years I tried to look at others' point of view, but somewhere in there I feel like I have handed out all MY rights and might as well be rodney dangerfield getting no respect!
Finding reliable news sm
If you want facts, the best place is the internet and alternative news sites. Those that rely on the mainstream news for information are not well-informed. The only news I watch on the TV is BBC World.

Here is a good article on the subject:

The Difficulty in Being an Uninformed American.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/010909Roberts2.shtml
Finding another line of work.......... sm
That might work for a prison doctor who did not believe in capital punishment but was suddenly asked to perform lethal injections as part of the job. That physician could find employment in the private sector where lethal injection would not be a part of the job description and do just fine.

But what about the OB/GYN who specializes in women's health care? He or she would not be able to practice medicine in his/her chosen field ANYWHERE. Some may have been practicing for 20 years or more. What do you propose they do? Go back to medical school to specialize in cardiology or neurology? Or maybe they should just go flip burgers at Mickey D's.

Some people have a lot of years and many thousands of dollars invested in their professions, unlike most of us who could easily change our line of work if we were suddenly required by our job to do something we found ethically or morally wrong.
here was Joe the Plumber and then Rick Santelli. nm
xxx
Do you honestly believe that a evil tyrant like Sadam Hussein would NOT have WMDs?
He used chemical warefare on the Kurds in the 1980s. They exist.  They were well hidden and are probably now well hidden just across the border into Iraq or Syria.  Stop kidding yourselves! 
They couldn't get WMDs straight - what makes you so sure the exterminated were "terrorists?

Everything they did is suspect - all under layers upon layers of secrecy. If it was correct, legal and moral - WHY DID THEY HIDE IT?


Rick Davis receiving money

for Fannie Mae lobbying even as late as LAST MONTH.  Corruption.


 


rick davis campaign manager
check breaking news on new relevations about mccain's man receiving money up until last month for "consulting" work for FMFM.  Big scandal.
Rick James died in 2004
of a heart attack. That was too bad. I loved Superfreak.
Right-wing websites are the only sources I'm finding.....
People from all over the world own property in the US....so, in that respect, it is nothing new. Whether or not they'll get "bailed out" is whole nother ball of wax.
Rick Warren? The pastor who prayed
The one who spoke on Larry King Live yesterday about the same sex marriage? Which was probably why the post above brought up Rick Warren. The one who wrote the Purpose Driven Life? The pastor of Saddleback Church who has 22,000 members that attend his church on weekends and a total of 65,000 members on-line? The pastor who has 7,000 volunteers? The pastor who ministers individuals who have HIV/AIDS? I could go on and on. You never heard of him? Must not have seen Obama's inauguration.
They are continuously finding evidence through DNA testing
that an innocent person was executed.
And I'm worried about Obama finding a reason to declare...sm
martial law once he's in office, and creating his own dictatorship. Works both ways.

I still say Bush will be glad to be well out of it come January 20, 2009.


But watch....Bush will get blamed for everything that goes wrong for the next four years anyway
Who the heck is Rick Warren and who cares what he thinks
x
why don't you answer my question? Not finding any 'disgraces' in O's speech?...nm
I am waiting for examples. I guess, in vain.
Stupid question....I got Rick Santelli on a rant with this link.....
did I do something wrong? LOL.
Finding those Bachmann, US-style weath distribution and prayer request for O's GM
Hate-generating slurs don't blink an eye, even with Obama's last living elder relative on her death bed. Such class. And this would capture votes how?
Nah, propaganda?
They're just on a roll for stupid remarks. Check out the Repug from Iowa's dignified, intelligent line of thinking. What a jerk; obviously King prefers anemic blonde bimbos who spew out the same garbage he does.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726435

Iowa Congressman Apologizes for Rude Helen Thomas Reference

By E&P Staff

Published: June 22, 2006 2:00 AM ET

NEW YORK Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, apologized to Helen Thomas on Wednesday for disparaging comments he made about the veteran White House correspondent.

Last Saturday, Rep. King, while discussing the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at the state Republican convention, said, What occurred to me that morning is something that I imagine a lot of you have thought about and he's probably figured it out by now. There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at and if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas.

The remark drew wide laughter and applause.

A spokeswoman for the two-term congressman said King has apologized to Thomas, 85, now writing a column for Hearst newspapers.

King is running for re-election this fall.

Joyce Schulte, King's Democratic opponent in November, said
Mean-spirited remarks are beneath the dignity of any self respecting congressperson, and remarks about another person's appearance are even lower. I hesitate to even use Helen Thomas' name in the same document with so vile a wretch as al-Zarqawi. But I want her and the world to know that Iowans are not insensitive buffoons who make fun at someone else's expense.




because it is propaganda

due to the upcoming election.


 


Propaganda goes on. n/m
x
That is taken from the PROPAGANDA

link, which I already explained, and when you click on the red "require" link, it takes you directly to OBAMA'S PLAN, which does NOT SAY THAT.  The original link IS A LIE.


It was cleverly worded, intended to promote the propaganda that's attractive to predisposed Obama haters, who apparently are known to NOT click on the "supporting" link which, in this case, DOES NOT support their assertion.  I agree it worked with some, and that's sad.


No, both plus yours are false.
On intercountry adoption you will find the following: "...the laws of the child’s country of birth govern all activity in that country including the adoptability of individual children as well as the adoption of children in the country in general"...that country of birth being the United States. It does not matter in the slightest the hoops Obama's mom and adopted father had to jump through to satisfy INDONESIAN immigration law, designation of religion or school admission requirements. Dual citizenship, triple citizenship...whatever...does NOT and WILL NEVER cancel his US citizenship.
False Ad

Obama Continues Airing False Ad


heritage.org


this was not false
This was on the news, it is online and this comment was not false.  Do you not keep up with the latest?
Watch that propaganda now!
It's simply not true that Cindy Sheehan had "nothing but praise" for Bush and has now done a 360-degree turn. It's Drudge and Limbaugh nonsense with quotes taken out of context and spun to try and seem....what? It's nothing if not illogical. Aren't those intent on smearing her loudly proclaiming that she has been anti-Bush and anti-war since long before her son was killed? Then why would she fall all over herself praising him AFTER her son was killed? It makes no sense at all, but the attackers aren't really big on making sense apparently. They just throw all the garbage at the wall and see what might stick, that's how they operate.

What I really don't get is what the attackers are meaning to say. Even if it were true that Ms. Sheehan "did a 360" - point please? So what? So perhaps she was trying to make the best of a bad bad situation and least be respectful toward the president in consideration of his meeting with her and other family members - but since then, as she says herself, we have had the Downing Street proof, we have learned there were no WMDs at the time we invaded, we have learned all sorts of unbelievably horrible things - why SHOULDN'T anyone let those things change their views?

Now she just wants to know what this "noble" cause is that the President keeps referring to, and she wants to ask him to stop using the dead to justify making more unnecessary dead. But oh no, she must have an AGENDA! - well seems like that's it, isn't it? She wants to know and she wants him to look her in the eye and explain himself. And why shouldn't he? Or more precisely, why can't he seem to be able to do it? If he is sincere in his beliefs and committed to the cause, considering he's such a straight-talking nice guy, what's the problem? What is the big deal? It could all be over with in an hour. Why won't he just do it?
I agree. Probably over-the-top propaganda. sm
The more she hawks that film, the less interest I have in viewing it. I'm guessing it has more creative editing and special effects than a Hollywood movie, with plenty of lies and misinformation thrown in for good measure.

I like to find objective sources of information whenever possible, and that sure ain't gonna come from sam on this topic, IMO.
propaganda when convenient to you.
nm
Why do you say its racist propaganda
I just watched the video and there is nothing racist or of any propaganda. Whoever made the video took actual clips of Obama talking and talked about Obama's ideologies and mentors. Nothing racist involved. Is it your just upset because the truth about Obama is coming out and you dont want anyone to know what he is like?
That's pure propaganda

Right down to the music that is being played in the background.  Anyone can take bits and pieces of articles and flash them on the screen.  Those aren't facts. 


The democrates did not cause the financial crisis. Here are some real facts:


Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration. 


The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country.  It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican adminstration EXCEPT the top 1%. 


While Nixon and Ford were in office interest rates for mortgages had ballooned to 11%-13% and many people in this country could not afford to buy a home.  Carter brought those rates down so that more people in this country could afford to buy homes. 


What caused this mess is not the people who were extended credit.  Here is part of what caused it:  Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time.  Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. First-time home buyers were especially targeted.  A lot of them didn't understand what they were getting into because it was misrepresented to them.  They didn't know, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalities.  Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and they were unable to refinance.  Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford.  As homeowners lost their homes the banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices were no longer able to collect on those loans.  But the banks (and the CEOs) that initated those loans walked away with a great deal of money. 


It was because of greed.  And the deregulation that the republicans passed allowed it to happen. 


 


More Republican propaganda s/m

If you had been alive or old enough to remember, things like this were not that uncommon.  The hippie cult was rampant, especially in California and most of them were drug crazed, LSD I believe was the drug of choice, haven't heard of that in years..  The Viet Nam War was even more controversial than the Iraq War.  Soldiers came home from Viet Nam and were spit on by these kinds of radicals.  It was on the news daily.  Anyone else remember?  These people now have grandsons and granddaughters in Iraq and I can tell you first hand that at least some of them regret what they did and said in the 60s.


Now, considering this was back in the 60s and there is absolutely no proof that Obama was best buds with Ayers in the first place, why not let it go?  Apparently Ayers is a respected professor today.  How many of you who are of a ripe old age like myself would like to be judged on what you did when you were in your 20s?  I wouldn't.


 


Propaganda can be destructive to us ALL


by: Robert Parry, Consortium News


photo
Republican Whip Eric Cantor meets with his staffers. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)




    Today's Republicans are thumbing through Newt Gingrich's worn playbook of 1993 looking for tips on how to blunt President Barack Obama's political momentum and flip it to their advantage. In doing so, they also appear to have dug in to what might be called the secret appendix.

    The official history of what happened during Bill Clinton's difficult first two years - which ended in a sweeping Republican congressional victory in 1994 - focuses on the GOP's united resistance to his economic plan and Hillary Clinton's failed health care reform. But there was a darker side to the political damage inflicted on the early Clinton administration.


    Republicans and their right-wing allies disseminated what - in a covert operation - would be called "black propaganda." Some exaggerated minor scandals, like the Travel Office firings and Clinton's Whitewater real-estate deal, while other key figures on the Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, spread ugly conspiracy rumors linking Clinton to "mysterious deaths" and cocaine smuggling.


    Sometimes, these multiplying "Clinton scandals" built on themselves with the help of their constant repetition in both the right-wing and mainstream news media. For instance, overheated accusations about some personnel changes at the White House Travel Office pushed deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster into a deep depression.


    Then, on July 30, 1993, a distraught Foster went to Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River and shot himself. The Right quickly transformed the tragedy into a new front in the anti-Clinton psychological warfare, with Foster's death giving rise to a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists and a new way to raise doubts about Clinton.


    Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others, popularized the notion that Foster may have been killed elsewhere, with his body then transported to Fort Marcy Park. Repeated official investigations confirmed the obvious facts of Foster's suicide but could not quell the conspiracy rumors. [For the fullest account of the Foster case, see Dan Moldea's A Washington Tragedy.]


    The "mystery" around Foster's death also bolstered the "mysterious deaths" list, which mostly contained names of people who had only tangential connections to Clinton. The effectiveness of the list was the sheer volume of the names, creating the illusion that Clinton must be a murderer even though there was no real evidence implicating Clinton in any of the deaths.


    As the list was blast-faxed far and wide, one of my right-wing sources called me up about the list and said, "even if only a few of these are real, that's one helluva story." I responded that if the President of the United States had murdered just one person that would be "one helluva story," but that there was no evidence that Clinton was behind any of the deaths.


    Other dark Clinton "mysteries" were spread through videos, like "The Clinton Chronicles" that Falwell hawked on his "Old-Time Gospel Hour" television show. Plus, salacious tales about the personal lives of the Clintons were popularized via right-wing magazines, such as The American Spectator, and the rapidly expanding world of right-wing talk radio.


    The Right also generated broader conspiracy theories about "black helicopters" threatening patriotic Americans with a United Nations takeover. The paranoia fed the rise of a "militia movement" of angry white men who dressed up in fatigues and went into the woods for paramilitary training.


    By fall 1994, Clinton's stumbling performance in office and the public doubts created by the black propaganda opened the way for a stunning Republican victory. Recognizing the influence of talk radio in spreading the Clinton smears, House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.


    However, the forces that the anti-Clinton psy-war campaign set in motion had unintended consequences. In the months after the Republicans gained control of Congress, one pro-militia extremist, Timothy McVeigh, took the madness to the next step and blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Clinton Coup d'Etat?"]


    Reprising the Smears


    Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama's presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.


    In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.


    And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents - and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor.


    So far at least, the Republicans are experiencing less success against Barack Obama than they did against Bill Clinton. According to opinion polls, Obama remains widely popular with an American public that favors his more activist agenda for reviving the American economy and confronting systemic problems like energy, health care and education.


    Though Republicans scored points inside the Beltway with their opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill - and their complaints that Obama "failed" in his bipartisan outreach to them - the GOP tactics appear to have backfired with the American people.


    Gauging public opinion one month into Obama's presidency, polls found that most Americans faulted the Republicans for rebuffing Obama's gestures of bipartisanship, and a New York Times/CBS News poll discovered that a majority said Obama "should pursue the priorities he campaigned on … rather than seek middle ground with Republicans." [NYT, Feb. 24, 2009]


    But the Republicans seem incapable of coming up with any other strategy than to seek Obama's destruction, much as they torpedoed Clinton. The three moderate Republican senators who supported the stimulus package - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter - were widely denounced by the right-wing media as "traitors."


    Indeed, the Republican Party arguably has become captive to the angry right-wing media that the GOP conservatives did so much to help create in the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War defeat and Richard Nixon's Watergate debacle.


    This Right-Wing Machine proved useful in protecting Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal; undermining Clinton in the 1990s; dirtying up AL Gore in 2000; and wrapping George W. Bush in the protective garb of a full-scale cult of personality after 9/11.


    But the machine wore down in its defense of Bush's multitude of disasters and ultimately could not generate enough suspicions about Obama to elect John McCain. Still, it remains a potent force in the country and particularly among the Republican "base."


    It is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status.


    In turn, Republican leaders can't disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama's presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh's openly declared desire for Obama to fail.


    Now, the Republicans may see little choice but to bet on the ability of their Right-Wing Machine to continue spreading doubts and hysteria about Obama.


    More books and DVDs can be expected soon, recycling the 2008 campaign's rumor-mongering on Obama - that he wasn't born in the United States, that he's a secret Muslim, that he's in league with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, etc.


    Rumbling Insurrection


    Much like the Clinton-era militia movement's fear of "black helicopters," there already are rumblings about the need for an armed uprising to thwart Obama's alleged "communist" agenda.


    Ironically, right-wingers who defended George W. Bush when he mounted a radical assault on the Constitution - seeking to establish an imperial presidency while eliminating habeas corpus and other key freedoms - are suddenly seeing threats to the Constitution from Obama.


    Fox News, in particular, has been floating the idea of armed rebellion. On Feb. 20 - the one-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration - Glenn Beck hosted a special program called "War Room" that "war-gamed" various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when "bubba" militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.


    The segment featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama's election last November.


    "This is going to be violent," said Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute. "People can't afford it [taxes] anymore. The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They're going to be uncontrollable. You're going to have gangs in control. Motorcycle marauders. You're not going to have enough police or federales - just like Mexico - to control the situation."


    Beck envisioned the uprising - theoretically set in 2014 - starting "because people have been so disenfranchised" leading to a "bubba effect" touched off by federal agents from the ATF or FBI arresting some rancher in Texas or Arizona who has taken the law into his own hands in defending his property.


    "That's totally possible," ex-Sgt. Strong said. "You've got people who are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of the United States, to include their own. … Your second and third orders of effect are going to be your bubbas hunkering down and being anti-government."


    Beck, who was a longtime fixture on CNN's Headline News before moving to Fox, then expanded on the justification for the bubba uprising against a federal government that was "coming in and disenfranchising people over and over and over again - and having the people say please listen to us."


    According to Beck, these oppressed Americans "know the Constitution. They know the writings of the Founders and they feel that the government - or they will in this scenario and I think we're on this road - the government has betrayed the Constitution. So they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution."


    Beck then turned to ex-CIA officer Scheuer and asked, "So how do you defuse this, Michael, or how long even do we have before this becomes a crazy real scenario?"


    "I don't think you'd want to defuse it, Glenn," Scheuer responded. "The Second Amendment is … at base not about hunting or about a militia, but about resisting tyranny. The Founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against a tyrannical government."


    As the discussion edged toward advocacy of violent revolution, Beck sought to reel it back in a bit.


    "Don't get me wrong," the host said. "I am against the government. And I think they've just been horrible. I do think they are betraying the principles of our Founders every day they're in office. But I have to tell you this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is shaking nitroglycerine."


    Beck then got back to the point: "Do the soldiers come in and do they round up people or do they fight with the people for the Constitution? What does the Army, what does the military do?"


    Scheuer answered: "I don't think the military is ever going to shoot on the American people, sir. I think the military - of all people - read the Constitution every year, right through."


    Beck then suggested that Obama's stimulus package might lead to this back-door federal tyranny.


    "We just had in our stimulus package a way for if your governor says no to the money, the legislature can go around the governor and go right to the Feds," Beck said. "It's this kind of thing that would make the federal government say, ‘You know what? We can call up the National Guard. We don't need your governor to do it.'"


    Such insurrectionist musings on Fox News are not likely to be taken seriously by most people. Indeed, many Americans may find it amusing that Fox has developed a heartfelt concern about disenfranchising voters after its enthusiastic embrace of Bush's undemocratic "election" in 2000 or that Fox now feels a sudden reverence for the Constitution after eight years of defendin Bush as he trampled it.


    But this sort of Fox chatter runs the risk of feeding the well-nursed grievances of angry white "bubbas" and possibly inspiring a new Timothy McVeigh.


    More significantly, today's Republican leaders - finding themselves with little new to offer - appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.


    -------


    Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.


»


Propaganda - whatever spin they need
We also have socialized K-12 schools and libraries; how is it that big business missed that chance for profit?  Never turned me into a Bolshevik.  But somehow, if we had free health care, it would corrupt us completely.
NOT propaganda - FACT
But I rather doubt people like yourself are interested in distinguishing between the two..

As to independent thought? when is the last time (or the first!) that you ever tried to follow up on a concept that you initially REJECT?

You can't slam the other side if you never consider it's point of view.

Fortunately some of us stopped being robots a long time ago and do our own research...
propaganda - see message

Could those of you who label some posts as having a less than credible news source share your techniques for finding and recognizing purely factual unbiased news and also how you keep from adding your own perspective in order to relay such incredibly unalloyed information to us? 


false accusations
You know, back in the late 1990's, I belonged to a political group and there was one person who started off posting okay, as the hours went on, her posts grew more and more illogical, like how yours do.  Well, when I finally befriended her, she confided she was an alcoholic and when she first sat down, she was okay, as she drank, her posts did not make sense.  Kind of like your posts.  I have told you over and over, I NEVER wished rotting in hell to anyone on any of these boards, I wish it still for Bush and all that got us into this never-ending war against *terrorism*.  Then you state I called the three cohorts three stooges, nope, not me.  The thing that cracks me up, is the proof is in the pudding.  The posts are here for anyone to read and see that your accusations are false.  So, why dont you just put that bottle down, its only gonna give you major organ damage in the long run.  A nice cup of green tea can be just as relaxing.
False beliefs
On the flip side, what good will the war do us when we lose our house, our jobs, can no longer afford the food in the stores, can't buy gas to get to work (if you still have a job), you and your family now have to find a campground or shelter to live at (or worse) and the banks close and now you can't get any of your money out that you may have in there (this has already happened somewhere - would have to research again to find the exact location but its here in the US). This is exactly the scare tactics/agenda McCain is trying to push (gotta keep up the war, keep up the war, everyone is the enemy, lets keep it going for 100 years) - give me a break! They are trying to get enough people to be afraid (which is in itself a form of terrorism) that we are going to be attacked again. You know what...get our troops home and we will have more troops to protect our borders and increase security here in the US) Well first the economy is the most important issue (at least to me), unless of course you plan to pack up your stuff and go join the service and fight over there. If the economy collapses where are you going to be. How bout your parents/grandparents who cannot just pick up so easily and move to another area. McCain keeps pushing the war issue because he has no clue about the economy. He doesn't even remain consistent with his issue on gay marriage. My feeling is I don't care if George & John down the street or Mary & Sue down the road want to get married - that will not effect my day-to-day life however the economy does, my job does, eating and paying bills does affect me each day. McCain was at a meeting and he said he was for gay marriage, then 11 minutes later he said he was not for gay marriage. He's too old and out of touch with reality. Do you really want someone with his temper ready to hit the launch button in in whim? He is not a stable man (in my opinion).
false. Throw something

else against the wall, may be it will stick.


 


True and false
True - last 8 years were not good (including the last two with a democratic congress). With that said I was glad there were two new people running and not Bush again.

Attractiveness is a major component for success.

Charisma can be successful but very very dangerous. Charisma mesmerizes people. When people are mesmerized they don't think clearly. They fall into a hypnotic state (which Obama is very good at), and you can tell them anything and they will believe it. Just look at all the people who actually believe Obama is the Messiah or Moses.

As for the qualifications. Obama doesn't have any unless you call being a charismatic speaker experienced. After all he got a lot of people to believe that being a community organizer was enough experience to be president. I also found it interesting Joe Biden and Bill Clinton both said he lacked the experience to be president.
This is a false rumor
Check out emails like this that you get on snopes.com.  If you go to snopes website and type in AIG bailout congress pension you will get the real truth.  So many emails I get are totally false I never forward anything until I check it out on snopes. 
This is false per www.truthorfiction.com. sm
I think it is a good letter fake or not.

Ms. Kathleen Lyday is a real person, works for Grandview Elementary School in Hillsboro, MO but told TruthorFiction.com that she did not author this letter.

We have not found who actually wrote this.

Below is the disclaimer from ToF.

School teacher wrote a letter to President Obama criticizing his actions on a 2009 overseas trip -Fiction!



Well, that's nasty propaganda at work...
...and they use it because it *does* work, unfortunately.

But hey - Jesus and his closest followers were never a majority of anything. They weren't the powerful, or those in control of the Temple, or those who lived in luxury in the lap of Rome. Those who were in control hated them and considered them pesky liberals. So I guess Democratic Christians stand in pretty good historical company.