The Comprehensive Intellectual Dishonesty of the Bush Junta

The Bush junta, and more importantly its supporters, believe that there is no difference between "not getting caught in a lie" and "telling the truth." Every bit of information from them, whether the subject is war, the economy, the environment, social issues, science, employment, the budget, or whatever, is altered to support rightwing dogma, while supporting evidence is consistently exaggerated and contrary findings are routinely, and sometimes forcefully, suppressed.

The Comprehensive Intellectual Dishonesty of the Bush Junta

Postby Ferguson Foont » Fri Aug 08, 2003 12:42 am

There's a piece in the <I>Washington Post</I> today by Rick Weiss, entitled <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31318-2003Aug7.html"><B>"Bush Misuses Science, Report Says;</B> Democrats Say Data Are Distorted to Boost Conservative Policies,"</A> about a report released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) that details the manipulation of statistics and scientific reports to make data appear to support their policies, even when that data leads to inescapable opposite conclusions.

This report in the Post pisses me off a little, because instead of flatly stating, "Report Reveals Manipulation of Scientific Data," instead it states it in a manner that questions the motives behind the report and brands them as politically partisan by saying, "<I>Democrats <B>say</B></I> data are distorted..." despite the fact that none of the issues raised by the report are in any dispute.

Here's the Post article:
The Bush administration has repeatedly mischaracterized scientific facts to bolster its political agenda in areas ranging from abstinence education and condom use to missile defense, according to a detailed report released yesterday by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The White House quickly dismissed the report as partisan sniping.

The 40-page document, "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration," was compiled by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee's special investigations division. It marks the launch of a new effort by Waxman and others in Congress to highlight simmering anger among scientists and others who believe that President Bush -- much more than his predecessors -- has been spiking science with politics to justify conservative policies in areas such as reproductive rights, embryo research, energy policy and environmental health.

"The Administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists," according to the report, posted yesterday at http://www.politicsandscience.org. "The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups."

White House spokesman Adam Levine said it would take time for the administration to address the specifics of the report. However, he said, "I'm hard-pressed to believe anyone would consider Congressman Waxman an objective arbiter of scientific fact."

Several prestigious scientific journals have editorialized about the Bush administration's dealings in science in recent months, including Science, Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine.

An editor at Science, for example, recently said in print that the administration was injecting politics into arenas of science "once immune to this kind of manipulation."

And the editors of The Lancet noted "growing evidence of explicit vetting of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of their political or religious opinions" and warned against "any further right-wing incursions" on those panels.

The General Accounting Office has been investigating such allegations since some in Congress asked the agency to do so in September, but it has not released any findings.

Among the purported abuses documented in the report:<UL><LI>"Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.

<LI>In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.

<LI>The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.

<LI>The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations.

<LI>Bush has appointed to key scientific advisory committees numerous people with political, rather than scientific, credentials -- for example, his appointment to a presidential AIDS advisory committee of marketing consultant Jerry Thacker, who has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and referred to AIDS as the "gay plague."</UL>A spokesman for Waxman said the report will be updated on the Web as new examples arise.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Bush excuse 9/7/03

Postby Whosyer » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:47 pm

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics...

Yes this is a good place to talk about Bush's speech Sunday Night.

I'm in shock. I wondered just how Bush was going to explain the last five months with out using the phrase... "A complete and total failure".

But not only did he not refer to reality he took a turn I didn't think he had the balls for. He repeated the Iraq-AlQaeda connection lie. Only it's new and improved. It's taking the place of the "It was always Regime change" lie which had already replaced the "WMD gonna get you in 45 minutes or less" lie.

Now we are being asked to ignore serious problems at home and pour 87 billion onto Bush's war on terrorism which now all of a sudden Iraq is the front line of.

We couldn't find any terrorists in Iraq before the war but now everytime a car bomb goes off in Iraq it isn't Saddam loyalist but people directly connected to al Qaeda. Sure there was that one guy who we believed saw a doctor in Baghdad back in 1994... but no reports of any of them taking flight lessons at Saddam International.

I think Bush saw the poll that came out over the weekend that said that 74% of the people in America still believed that Iraq had something to do with Iraq... and his handlers thought; "Alright... one less lie we have to make up. This one here we can use again."

Still I must say that I am impressed at how well Bush is able to hold up a lie when the truth is in full view. You have to admit that 74% two years after 9-11 is pretty impressive. Especially when all of the factual evidence has suggested the opposite.

My Grandchildren are going to study this time in America. And the grand psychosis that took over three quarters of our population.
"Now there are some who would like to re-write history... Revisionist Historians is what I like to call them." ...George Walker Bush
Whosyer
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:54 pm
Location: West Central Florida

Postby David Campo » Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:16 pm

It goes back several years at least. I mean, how could the United States of America elect a guy who isn't qualified to clean San-o-Lets to the most powerful position in the world. No point in arguing, "he wasn't elected", ok? The fact is a infintesimal fraction less than half the voters cast their ballots for a fool of epic proportions, so we start off knowing at least half the country is dumb as a stone (assuming most non-voters aren't the smartest people in the world). The only group of people who are really bothersome are the Democrats who support Bush.
David Campo
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:44 am

Postby harper pine » Mon Sep 08, 2003 8:18 pm

This is funny. The question of how dumb Americans are just came up on another thread, too.

I do find it incredible that so many people believe the Saddam/alQaeda connection, especially now that even some of the "pundits" (aren't pundits supposed to be wise people?) are shutting it down. Whose poll was that? Was it worded strangely, or are people really totally uninformed? (There, that's better than 'dumb,' isn't it?)

I think Americans are so used to our way of life that they don't believe it can end. And they don't know how to fight for something that precious. They think fighting for democracy means having a war, not being informed and speaking up.

Yeah, Whosyer, the poll played right into his hands. But people are also worried about the war and the economy, and he didn't have the guts to come clean on the amount of money ($90 billion will take care of about 7 months of military, not counting reconstruction, spending over there), to mention WMD's, or the economy.

I sincerely hope our grandchildren live in a world where there are honest historians who are allowed to write the truth.
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby harper pine » Mon Sep 08, 2003 8:26 pm

And you're right, David, almost half the voters were stupid enough to vote for Booboo in the first place. I'd like to say it serves them right, but it didn't serve the majority of us or the rest of the world right. Americans should realize that how we vote affects everyone in the world and not just their little ideological, ignorant part of it. Of course, it they weren't ignorant, they'd realize that. And if our educational system didn't suck and people didn't watch so much TV, maybe they wouldn't be so ignorant.
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Ferguson Foont » Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:14 am

It really IS frustrating that so many people believe that Iraq and/or Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qa'eda and were involved in the events of 9/11. The people making the decisions in the Bush junta certainly know this to be untrue and yet they still, even now, continue to spread that bit of disinformation around through their dissembling implications.

Al-Qa'eda and the Ba'ath regime in Iraq were MORTAL ENEMIES, far more at each others' throats than either was against the United States. Al Qa'eda is an Islamic fundamentalist group to whom the greatest evil was secular rule of Moslem countries, like existed in Iraq and still exists in Syria. Much of Saddam Hussein's reputed oppression was implemented to keep the Islamic fundamentalists like al-Qa'eda under control in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein would never have had dealings with them. They were bitter enemies. Indeed, the Hussein regime did much to stamp out various Islamic terrorist groups that tried to set up shop in Iraq, including an execution of a top leader of Hamas only a couple of months before "Shock and Awe."

Iraq was NEVER a "terrorist regime" until we made it one over the past few months. Now it will be a terrorist regime forever more.

Thanks so much, George W. Bush.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Postby Ferguson Foont » Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:45 am

Others are beginning to notice. Indeed, since Friday or so, it almost seems as if the press has taken on a whole change of tone regarding the Bush junta, and Bush's little speech last night may have accelerated the metamorphosis.

Today's lead editorial in <I>The New York Times</I> provides a case in point, dealing with the Bush administration dismissively and calling to its readers' attention their lack of character (still dancing around the big bad "L" word, however). The editorial, rather bluntly entitled, <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/opinion/09TUE1.html"><B>"Bush's Character,"</B></A> contains the following rather tough passages:
Other wrong turns, however, were chosen because of a fundamental flaw in the character of this White House. Despite his tough talk, Mr. Bush seems incapable of choosing a genuinely tough path, of risking his political popularity with the same aggression that he risks the country's economic stability and international credibility. For all the trauma the United States has gone through during his administration, Mr. Bush has never asked the American people to respond to new challenges by making genuine sacrifices.

When it turned out that things were far more complicated, the president hedged on the price tag — apparently out of fear that if Congress knew how high the bill was going to be, there would not be enough votes for another round of tax cuts. Congress, however, was happy enough to be deluded until it was too late. Now we know the cost is going to be massive, with much of the tab to be paid by the future generations who will be saddled with the Bush debt.

The United States has no clear exit strategy from Iraq or immediate hope of a turnaround in a violent, complicated and expensive commitment. The hard realities of postwar Iraq have convinced Mr. Bush that he needs the United Nations support he snubbed before the invasion. But even there he is avoiding the hard choice of acknowledging his error and ceding real authority to other nations. Diplomats are wondering, with good reason, whether Mr. Bush is embarking on a new era of international cooperation or simply giving them permission to clean up his mess.

Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price.


The CBS Evening News this evening was similarly dismissive. It may be too much to hope, but the worm seems finally to be turning, as it did to Bush's father, and with almost the precisely same timing, the last time a governor from a small state came out of the blue to win the Democratic nomination.

The economy has not yet reflected the serious hit it will take from the fuel price runup. Bush may have a very tough time ahead during a period when the foundations of political campaigns must be laid.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Postby harper pine » Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:23 am

It's nice to see the New York Times speaking sensibly, but it is rather late in the game. Where were they when all these faulty enterprises were embarked upon? Judith Miller bashed his speech on CNN the other night, but she was responsible for much of the credibility given to the WMD charges the administration was making. The New York Times ought to be apologizing just as much as Bush should. And the Washington Post should just curl up and die.

Bush's historical inability to take responsibility for his mistakes is playing out now. He's the kid who always knew he could call his parents to get him out of a fix, and now he expects the entire world to bail him out. When I hear people call up C-Span and say, "Bush really cares about the American people," I am in awe of how blind people can be to the fact that he is dumping his mess on them and their grandchildren.

It's not completely his mess, of course. The people who control him may see him as expendable now, and are willing to let him be the fall guy. Perhaps that's why we're seeing a change in the press. It's all very sudden, this eye-opening of the press, so it makes me a little suspicious of what's behind it. Newsweek, Time, and Vanity Fair all have published several stories this week that are critical of what's been going on, although to Vanity Fair's credit, they've been hammering away for a few months now.

But still, it's great to see the American press acting responsibly for a change and bringing so many questions and realities to the light of day. I credit Howard Dean and some of the other candidates for some of this, by speaking honestly and forthrightly and courageously. Perhaps some of his courage and honesty is rubbing off. Or perhaps they just see which way the wind is blowing. Anyway, it's a welcome change.
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Whosyer » Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:55 pm

"Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy."


Succeeded at business... He was continuously picked up off the trash heap of foreclosure and propped back up over and over in business by his family connections.

And the Rangers don't count... that was when he was pretending to be experiencing an act of faith to cure his vices while he would sit in the owners box and drink beer all day long in a Coca-Cola cup.

If there is al Qaeda in Iraq (we still haven't any proof that al Qaeda has been involved in any of the bombings... in fact Chalabi was who fed the press the story about 19 suspects all being Pakastani with connections to al Qaeda and then shortly after the F.B.I. got involved in the Mosque bombing investigation it turns out that there were 20 Iraqi's being held and 2 Pakastani's who were still being questioned about possible al Qaeda connections) if they are then they came in after Saddam was removed from power. It's really scary that so many people... powerful people in our government fail to understand the basic dynamics of our enemy (al Qaeda), something they prove everytime they try to make the Saddam/al Qaeda connection.

What I heard Sunday night and what was repeated over and over again by all the bushites hitting the sunday morning talk shows was that this isn't Bush's fault. Saddam and the terrorist aren't playing fair. Osama keeps running away from our troops and Saddam refused to line up his soldiers out in the desert so we could blow them all to smithereens. And if that isn't bad enough the French and the Germans are refusing to allow the U.N. to come in and clean up Bush's fuckup so long as Halliburton still gets all the contracts.

I heard somebody talking about the 87 billion and how large of a check every taxpayer would have to write to cancel the debt.

Then he said, "... and when you're writing that check don't forget that Halliburton is spelled with two "L"s."
"Now there are some who would like to re-write history... Revisionist Historians is what I like to call them." ...George Walker Bush
Whosyer
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:54 pm
Location: West Central Florida

Postby Ferguson Foont » Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:28 am

Think for a moment: $87 billion. Think what that would pay for.
<UL><LI>One million dollars each to 87,000 schools.

<LI>One $100,000 home each for 870,000 homeless people.

<LI>The entire NASA budget for the next six and a half years.

<LI>$300 for every man, woman and child in the United States.</UL>
It would buy a lot of stuff worth a hell of a lot more than anything we'll accomplish in Iraq.

And remember, it's a MAJOR understatement.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Postby harper pine » Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:35 am

In the September 19, 2003, Nation, David Corn has a list of

The Latest Bush Gang Whoppers,

and oh goodie, he's about to come out with a book called The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/i ... =3&pid=949

Also, you all probably get e-mail from MoveOn, but in case not, they've just started a new service where every day they send a new (documented) lie. You can sign up at

http://www.misleader.org/?email=harper2@rmi.net>http://www.misleader.org/?email=harper2@rmi.net

Also, I know it's the wrong thread, but they have a new campaign.

We're launching a petition calling on Congress to hold on to the $87 billion President Bush requested until Bush changes his team and changes his course in Iraq.


http://www.moveon.org/firerumsfeld/?id= ... VpH3WCzbsg>http://www.moveon.org/firerumsfeld/
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Josiah Bartlett » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:16 am

Richard Clarke has poked the proverbial hornet's nest with a stick. His revelations about the war on terra has brouht out a full court press from the bush* people to discredit him. They just seem to be digging themselves in deeper with their defense though.

He's the second insider to defect.

Will there be more?
I too represent the Democratic side of the Democratic Party.
Josiah Bartlett
Congressman
Congressman
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The Great Corrupt State of Florida

Postby Ferguson Foont » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:34 pm

They have a serious problem with Richard Clarke. It's obvious that he isn't a political partisan, or perhaps that any partisanship he's ever shown has been rightwing rather than left.

But a more important problem is that they have gone to this "viciously smear every critic" well too often now. Even the dullest observers are beginning to notice a pattern here, and the danger is that the story of this Bush League tactic may run parallel to the story about their malfeasance in combatting terrorism.

Remember, in Watergate, the break-in never touched Richard Nixon. It was the coverup that got him, and Bush's coverup tactics are far heavier-handed and more obvious than Nixon's ever were.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

The Whopper of the Week!

Postby LetterMan » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:12 am

And now we're expected to swallow the line that Bush's military pay records were somehow or another "accidentally destroyed" when a microfilm roll was being unrolled?

How truly stupid do these people think we are. Don't answer that question, we already know the answer.

These people are so utterly shameless and arrogant they think they can get away with this and the whore press will back them to the hilt.

This will be the acid test. If the media shills this story with a straight face, then we will know once and for all which of the media personalities are honest journalists (or at least have a shred of decency and honesty left within them) and which are shills.

The honest ones will question this. The shills will repeat it verbatim without question or comment.

What has our country come to?
Bush Lied. People Died
LetterMan
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:31 am
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Postby Ferguson Foont » Sat Jul 10, 2004 11:46 am

At the time these records were reportedly destroyed, Bush was just beginning his campaign for the presidency by hiring a swarm of private investigators to find out everything they could ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH. This wasn't oppo -- it was an attempt to scrub clean his past.

And that is when these records were destroyed.

Coincidence? Uh huh. Sure. Right.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Coincidence?

Postby LetterMan » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:32 pm

When it comes to the Bushies, nothing "just happens" or is "just a coincidence" that we shouldn't think about.

You could do an entire season of "X-Files" episodes about the series of odd "coincidences" that seem to have so conveniently saved Bush's sorry ass time and again over the years.

I am hoping that someone, somewhere has a backup copy (or copies) of those records and that someone is just waiting for the right moment to bring those records to light to the right people.

Oh how sweet would that be?
Bush Lied. People Died
LetterMan
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:31 am
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska


Return to Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics -- Bush Administration Deceits

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron