Archive for blatant lies

"Any subject the extreme right deems worthy of a lie" becomes a campaign

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

extreme right gopTruth-Lies

The extreme right lies constantly. They lie on air, they lie in print, they lie in tweets, they lie in Congress, they lie in GOP legislatures, they lie in their sleep. The extreme right lies about things that they claim are false but are provably true. Documented things. Factual things. *coughCLIMATECHANGEcough*

But that doesn't stop them, because if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. Especially uninformed, misinformed, ignorant people who can't or will not do any research of their own on any given topic.

Corporations are allowed to legally lie, too, by the way. Well, "corporate people," because, freedom of speech. Thank you, Supreme Court! Watch:

We can't stop them, legally at least. We can call them out, we can prove them wrong, we can try to be louder than the liars on the extreme right, and we can try to dissuade the gullible, the ignorant, the willfully ignorant, our friends and neighbors, and anyone else within shouting/writing distance. But they will still lie.

And with that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re: "When it comes to politics, there's no need to outlaw lying," Editorial, June 17

Police the liars? How did that work out for the millions of us advocating for equality as we tried to negate the lies coming from the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008? There are people who, six years later, still hold to be true the falsehoods perpetuated by the television ads and mailers of the campaign's deep pockets.

The damage is done, is nearly irreparable and causes harm to this day. Shame on the Supreme Court for clearing the way for the continuance of fabrication within political campaigns.

Couple that decision with the Citizens United and McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission rulings, and we're all in for Proposition 8-style campaigns on any subject matter the extreme right deems worthy of a lie. Again and again, the damage will be done as many take as gospel untruthful propaganda.

Sheila Alberg

Bakersfield

***

In the world of the pre-Roberts court, your editorial about criminalizing false political advertising would be on target. But since Citizens United and its progeny under this Supreme Court, money is apparently king.

If a well-funded group (spelled K-O-C-H) decides to place ads deliberately misrepresenting a candidate or ballot measure, how does the citizen candidate ever have the funds to publicly correct the defamation?

Your position would give license for more negative (and deliberately false) political ads and still more expensive campaigns.

And, by the way, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's line that "the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true" reminds me of the National Rifle Assn.'s phrase about good and bad guys with guns. That also sounded good until the Las Vegas good guy with a gun was killed and the Seattle good guy with pepper spray became a hero.

So much for the turn of a phrase.

Ken Goldman

Beverly Hills

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Ten years later...

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

bushtopple

Hugh Kaufman (senior policy analyst with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) is an old pal and a primary source of information for years. He just sent me a series of emails and has given me permission to share them with you. I've added a few things of my own to his collection.

And while we're at it, please take a look at Rachel Maddow's documentary "Hubris" (based on the book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff) at this link. It's an exposé of how the Bush administration snookered this country into a fraudulent war on a sovereign country that never invaded us. BushCo saw an opportunity and took it, and took us.

Ten years later...

The Obama administration and many Congress members inexplicably still want to “look forward, as opposed to looking backwards” instead of investigating and eventually prosecuting those who might have broken the law.

Ten years later...

Does prevarication pay? Did anyone apologize for prevaricating? Remember this bogus New York Times story that Saddam Hussein was gonna build nuclear weapons to bomb us with? Which helped lead to the Iraq War 10 years ago.

One of the reporters who wrote the bogus story is still at the New York Times, and the other is now at Fox News.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers are out $3 trillion, and hundreds of thousands are dead.

THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE IRAQIS; U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS:

More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb...

Ten years later...

Donald Rumsfeld says thank you for helping burn $3 trillion and the killing of hundreds of thousands based on his WMD lies.  (Why isn't he in jail?)

tweet donald rumsfeld iraq war ten years laterI wonder how liberated the dead Iraqis feel.

Ten years later...

Why aren't any media, except CNN, even mentioning that the Iraq War was to help the Big Oil Companies take over Iraq's Nationalized Oil?

Even, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan said, writing in his memoir:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

When shows are sponsored by BP, all that honest silly talk about corporate profits from Iraqi oil pretty much disappears.

Ten years later...

Why the Iraq War was fought for Big Oil...

Follow the money.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton...

Also, check out this article at the Nation about the money scam, that was the Iraq War, Why the Invasion of Iraq Was the Single Worst Foreign Policy Decision in American History:

By 2009, of course, it should all have been so obvious. We were no longer inside the neocon dream of unrivaled global superpowerdom, just mired in what happened to it. We were a chicken factory in the desert that no one wanted. [...]

In the bigger picture, the world is also a far more dangerous place than it was in 2003. Indeed, for the State Department, which sent me to Iraq to witness the follies of empire, the world has become ever more daunting. In 2003, at that infamous “mission accomplished” moment, only Afghanistan was on the list of overseas embassies that were considered “extreme danger posts.” Soon enough, however, Iraq and Pakistan were added. Today, Yemen and Libya, once boring but secure outposts for State’s officials, now fall into the same category. [...]

And so, happy tenth anniversary, Iraq War! A decade after the invasion, a chaotic and unstable Middle East is the unfinished legacy of our invasion. I guess the joke is on us after all, though no one is laughing.

Ten years later...

Why aren't these folks in jail, instead of being comfortable multimillionaires?

And finally, please link over to VIDEO- Osama bin Laden Watch: The so-called “vigilance” of George W. Bush.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO-- Hubris: Selling the Iraq War. BushCo saw an opportunity and took it, and took us.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

bushtopple

If you missed this exposé of how the Bush administration snookered this country into a fraudulent war on a sovereign country that never invaded us, then here's your chance. Please take a look and share widely.

Sadly, the Obama administration and many Congress members want to "look forward, as opposed to looking backwards" instead of investigating and eventually prosecuting those who might have broken the law:

Here are a few excerpts from the text:

By the end of 2002, the U.S military is headed to the Gulf. Congress is on board, as are British Prime Minister Tony Blair and most of the mainstream media. The stage is set for war. [...]

We were moving along the path of getting a good inspection going that would probably come to fruition one way or the other, but once you start military forces flowing to the extent that we did for Iraq, it's hard to pull them back.

As the inevitable moves closer, President Bush reargues the case and ups the ante with 16 infamous words in a state of the union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That would be yellowcake, again. But by referring to a six-month-old British white paper, the president does an end-run around a claim discredited by his own intelligence service.

It wasn't a matter of lying about this or lying about that, but rather through the artistry of speech writers and case presenters, conveying an impression to the American people that certain things were true.

It's a real sleight of hand. And I think it's kind to call that disingenuous.

He walked into my office with a sheaf of papers in my hand and he threw them down on the desk and said that's the script of my presentation at the United Nations. it came from the vice president's office. It was junk. It was pure junk. I was in charge of putting it together. [...]

On February 5th, 2003, the moment of truth arrives. The 4,701st meeting of the Security Council is called to order.

The world witnesses Colin Powell deliver the ultimate argument for war against Iraq. [...]

As he is talking about this and showing vials of white powder and so forth, I turned to a woman next to me who had followed this whole case of Curveball much more closely than I, I said, "What the hell is going on?" And my colleague said, "I don't know. I don't know what is going on. What is this?"

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"This heap of steaming veep meet between pseudo- friends was entertaining, if not informative"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Today’s guest post by the one, the only, Will Durst:

RINGSIDE AT THE UNDERCARD

Needed three towels to wipe down my living room after the Vice Presidential wrestling match, er, debate the other day. The sweat flung off both the bottom names of the campaign bumper stickers was so thick on the Centre College stage, it shot right through television screens onto viewers at home.

In this highly anticipated undercard bout, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan took off the gloves, put on their red white and blue Lucha Libre masks and went at each other hammer and tongs for 90 minutes with straight policy jabs and sweeping rhetorical hooks. Most of which whiffed, but it’s the thought that counts.

No knockdowns were recorded in this no- holds barred event, but the majority of ringside judges gave the decision to Biden on points, mainly for stopping his base’s bleeding and blocking his opponent’s momentum. And doing it all without suffering a stroke on national TV. Although, it was close.

Kudos were also tossed Martha Raddatz’s way, who refereed the event with a command and aplomb that had veteran observers refer to her as the anti- Jim Lehrer. She actually seemed to listen to the responses and called candidates out when they tried to weasel away. A recurring theme.

Paul Ryan’s intensive training regimen paid off, and he punched and counter punched all evening while smiling so hard you could almost hear the enamel cracking inside his mouth. The duplicitous platform he was forced to defend seemed to suck all the moisture out of his body as he kept downing glass after glass of water, which fortunately was replenished regularly, or the GOP budget guru might have spontaneously combusted. And who wants to die in Kentucky?

Meanwhile Joe Biden showed great restraint in checking his normal penchant for dismantling the shared desk and chewing it into pieces. Like an aging Chihuahua let outside after a long weekend locked in the basement he yapped and barked and laughed maniacally frequently exposing expensive dental work to all, frightening many children in the audience.

Seemed like the former Senator from Delaware had downed a couple quart containers of caffeinated Ensure. Then again after viewing the results, the White House might want to insure a case of Ensure is ready for President Obama next Tuesday at Hofstra University in New York.

Both Catholic combatants, the 69 year old Vice President and the 42 year old Wisconsin Congressman, waltzed delicately around the ring of malarkey when the question of abortion was raised, and a no- smirking zone was briefly established on both sides. And finally, not a single word about Big Bird. Obviously these two pugilists don't have their finger on the pulse of the American people.

On the style versus substance front, the GOP accused the Vice President of being loud, overbearing and rude. The very same qualities they called bold and commanding when Romney wore them last week. Hey, you guys: make up your mind. Pot- kettle- black much?

The Democratic ticket needs a visa to get out of Goldilocks Land: one half too cold- the other, too hot. But this reeking heap of steaming veep meet between pseudo- friends was entertaining, if not informative, and we could easily sell a rematch on pay- per- view: but only if the two fighters promise not to wear spandex. Maybe in 2016?

5 time Emmy- nominee Will Durst has just released an e- book on the 2012 campaign: “Elect to Laugh!” published by Hyperink. Available at Redroom.com or Amazon. Also his hit one- man show “Elect to Laugh!” every Tuesday at the Marsh. San Francisco. 8pm. Only 4, Four, 4 shows left. themarsh.org.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO- David Axelrod: Romney was dishonest on issue after issue

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

As I posted earlier, Moderate Mitt? Hardly.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO- Paul Krugman: "The press just doesn’t know how to handle flat-out untruths."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Team Obama's traveling press secretary explained the arithmetic behind their claims that Mitt Romney's tax plan would call for $5 trillion in cuts. It's hard to fathom how any voter can buy into Romney's "they're not telling the truth" accusations when it's so easy to fact check.

Here's what the press secretary said, via LiveWire:

"So lowering the rates, as Mitt Romney has said he would do, to 20 percent -- $2.7 trillion over 10 years; eliminating the AMT -- $700 billion; repealing high-income payroll tax -- $300 billion; ending estate tax -- $150 billion; lowering the corporate rate from 35 to 25 -- $1.1 trillion.  That adds up to $4.8 trillion.  If you factor in interest for additional borrowing, you get to $5 trillion."

Here's the math laid out at the BarackObama.com site.

Then on "This Week" Paul Krugman hammered the lack of fact-checking by all involved. Relevant segment at 6:39:

 

"I don’t know whether to blame Lehrer or blame the president, but it was kind of amazing because Romney was not only saying things that are not true, he was saying things that his own campaign had previously said weren’t true.

Romney displayed "a kind of contempt for the public... the contempt for the whole process, the contempt for us. He's thinking the news media will not cover on me on this. As long as I say it forcefully they'll say I won."

"The press just doesn’t know how to handle flat-out untruths."

He's right. If debate moderators would call out the lies, or at least do what Tim Russert used to do on "Meet the Press" and confront statements with previous conflicting ones, that would help. Or if there were a contemporaneous crawl at the bottom of the screen that would challenge falsehoods instantly, maybe viewers would get a more complete picture.

But to allow lies to go unchecked until the next day and beyond is a disservice to voters and democracy. How can anyone make an informed choice based on distortions?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Moderate Mitt? Hardly.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

When the cameras rolled Mitt Romney's performance began—problem is that's all it was.

Over the past several months, Team Obama has accurately and effectively shown Willard M. Romney to be the liar that he is, with a whole lot of help from the Etch A Sketcher himself. He's flipped and flopped, constantly changed his positions, avoided revealing details of those altered positions, bashed and dismissed 47% of Americans, refused to divulge his tax returns, come off like the spoiled, entitled rich, corporate 1 percenter he is, and made gaffe after gaffe, embarrassing not only himself, but the entire country.

Then he intruded on the first presidential debate as an assertive, frenzied version of whoever he was at that moment, slithered into his latest incarnation, gave TV land a theatrical burst of energy, and suddenly we're supposed to buy into his Mitthology and give him credibility as a viable candidate after having written him off (justifiably) as a cold, weak, heartless, and very dishonest snob.

Voters are supposed to believe that Severely Conservative Romney is now Moderate Mitt, and that all those other policy positions never existed. It must be true because all the punditiots are yammering about it.

Can America be that gullible? Really? Is this the Real Romney?

Doyle McManus wrote an op-ed for the L.A. Times that warns us not to count on it:

Who is the real Romney? Only a month from election day and almost 20 years into Mitt Romney's political career, the question is still being asked. [...]

A closer look suggests that Romney's move toward the center is a matter of tone and emphasis more than substance. ... [H]is campaign insisted that he didn't say anything substantively new at all. [...]

But notice that those who know Romney best, like Murphy, don't use the word "moderate" to describe him. The adjective they prefer is "pragmatic" — as in "pragmatic conservative."

On the substance of his positions, Romney's die is cast. He remains steadfast against raising taxes, even to help reduce the deficit. He remains intent on repealing Obama's healthcare law, even without a full-scale alternative to propose in its place. [...]

Last week, Romney took a half-step toward the center, a move dictated by the needs of a faltering presidential campaign. But it didn't change his core positions; he's still a conservative.

If he won't take his own promises seriously, why should anyone else? Let's hope those "undecideds" (oy) are smart enough to see through all the smoke he and the political commentators are blowing, and that President Obama can clearly, concisely, and congenially bring voters back to reality.

Oh, and so much for Romney’s “bipartisanship” claims.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare