The swiftboating of Scott McClellan by people who haven't read his book

... like Bob Dole, Dana Perino, and GW Bush.

In typical Republican smear method of operation, Bushies are piling on Scott McClellan and attacking him personally without even considering the substance of what he is saying or even having read the book.

Why is this viewpoint which has been verified time and time again, by previous insiders, Clarke and O'Neil, by a documented Pentagon propaganda program, by military generals, why is this so hard for Bushies to admit or accept? From the book:

Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East. ... Rather than open this Pandora's box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception but shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure); trying to make the WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable, than they were; quietly ignoring or disregarding some of the crucial caveats in the intelligence and minimizing evidence that pointed in the opposite direction; using innuendo and implication to encourage Americans to believe as fact some things that were unclear and possibly false (such as the idea that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program) and other things that were overplayed or completely wrong (such as implying Saddam might have an operational relationship with al Qaeda).

Yea, you can call him every name in the book, put up clever photoshops, link to websites that try to discredit McClellan through dubious circular reasoning (he lied then, must be lyin' now, follow the money, etc...), but in the final analysis, you have to listen to what he says and by every indication - he is 100% right. Unlike this post, you won't find links or substance in these attack posts. They don't document or refute anything, they just smear - pathetically, that's all they can do - carry out an authoritarian agenda.

I can't wait for more polling data to come out to show who is more believable, Bush or McClellan.

McClellan: 'I'd be happy' to testify about Bush White House

McClellan on his book: What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception -

"My comments are sincere and honest and absolutely the truth..."

RS:

Lawyers working for the House Judiciary Committee are meeting with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan regarding the explosive revelations contained in his new tell-all memoir, and the committee's chairman says he may renew hearings on the administration's leak of a CIA officer's identity now that new details have been published.

CNN

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday he would be willing to comply with a possible congressional subpoena to discuss the administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he’d be “happy to talk if I am asked to testify.”

The reason why conservatives are so ill informed

A high ranking Bush staffer and long time associate - Scott McClellan says on the Today Show that the President admitted an impeachable offense and committed a crime; but what do the conservative news sources say about it? Almost nothing! If you get your news from Drudge, Fox News , World Net Daily ... you are living in another world.

No, it's not important to Drudge that McClellan verified that Bush admitted committing a crime - what is important to Drudge is this headline:

MCCLELLAN MIGHT VOTE FOR OBAMA...

What's important to FoxNews? On their front page they report stories like: Thong-Faced Thieves Rob Gas Station. Forget about Scotty! You'll find him well off their front page, buried deep in the political section with this headline:

White House Officials Decry McClellan Claims

World Net Daily - would we find an intelligent discussion of McClellan's allegations? Hell no! Just misinformation, swiftboating, bullshit peddling, and chasing wild geese:

Soros linked to hate-Bush McClellan book

Now, you can understand why these idiots suffer from a basic lack of knowledge. They willingly submit to manipulation, spin, and denial. Pathetic... and very telling.

UPDATE: Bob Dole called McClellan a 'miserable creature' and guess what, he had not read the book.

Bush admitted to McClellan that he authorized illegal intelligence leak - Today Show interview

UPDATE - Breaking: RS - Lawyers working for the House Judiciary Committee are meeting with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan regarding the explosive revelations contained in his new tell-all memoir, and the committee's chairman says he may renew hearings on the administration's leak of a CIA officer's identity now that new details have been published.

In other words - Bush at the very least committed an illegal and impeachable offense. The case could be argued that this would be tantamount to treason. Instructing underlings to selectively leak information resulting in a breach of national security, damage to US counterintelligence, and the outing of a CIA agent - Plame, who was working to monitor Iran's nuclear program. This was done to undermine a critic of the Iraq war.

It had long been suspected that Bush illegally leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate and subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from being able to seek accountability. Now it has been proven by Scott McClellan in his Thursday May 29, interview on the Today Show with NBC's Meredith Viera:

McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He [the reporter] was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he [Bush] said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

Why this is illegal:

It violates specific procedures on declassifying intelligence as detailed in an Executive Order that Bush signed on March 25, '03. To see more specific info on the law violated, the time line, and the statements [lies] Bush made on the record after authorizing the leaks (according to Libby's sworn testimony on pg. 39 of his filing), SEE THIS LINK.

Scott McClellan stated today in the same interview his noble motivations for telling the truth:

"I have a higher loyalty than my loyalty necessarily to my past work. That's a loyalty to the truth and it's a loyalty to the values I was raised on. I talk about my upbringing in a political family that talked about the nobility of public service and the importance of speaking up and talking about making a positive difference. I hope that this book will help do that."

95% of people surveyed on CNN this morning believed McClellan more than Bush. It's time for Bush supporters to do a gut check. What is more important to you, authoritarian loyalty, or the truth and the rule of law? Time to take a stand, which is it? Integrity and ethics, or loyalty, lies, and abuse of power?

Bush loyalist and top aide Scotty McClellan: White House ran a culture of deception

New book by Former White House Press Secretary, Scotty McClellan:
“What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”

This excellent inside source, Bush staffer observed the way Bush used propaganda to deliberately lie to the American people about the Iraq War. On the war, McClellan remarked:

"the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. ... What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

He further confirmed the story that the NYT broke in April, that Bush used lies in the form of carefully crafted propaganda to sell the war.

He commented that the tone of the presidency was set by: "...decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

To anyone who is remotely aware of the repeated pattern of deception that has marked the way the Bush White House has operated, none of this would come a s a surprise... (except maybe for those whose awareness doesn't extend beyond American Idol).

UPDATE: McClellan's book is a #1 best seller on Amazon with a 3 week waiting list.

Former McCain supporter and star prosecutor: Bush should be tried for murder

Consider the source. Vincent Bugliosi knows law. In his career at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial was the Charles Manson case.

Bugliosi, who supported John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, believes President GW Bush should be tried for murder and is publishing a book next week that outlines his case: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Considering his 100% conviction record, I'd say he probably has a good case.

Naturally, the wingnuts will scream "BDS... BDS." To that, Bugliosi offers this about his book and his case:

"... whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read"

Regarding the crime:

" ...in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. "

Bugliosi suggests that the death penalty would be appropriate for Bush.

Read more...

Also, consider the fact that there are a huge number of impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration in addition to the intentional lying about the rationale for war.

Make no mistake, Bush's lies about Iraq were clearly impeachable offenses.

here's a short list list of ten impeachable offenses:

1) torture/ illegal incarceration - violation of Geneva Convention
2) illegal domestic spying
3) politicizing the Justice Dept.
4) illegally manipulating environmental policy
5) destruction of and/or failure to maintain presidential records
6) ignoring subpoenas, oversight/bogus claims of executive priviledge
7) subverting law by profuse use of signing statements
8) involvement in the Abramoff case
9) involvement in the Plame outing (treason)
10) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.

There are other offenses that will come to light in the future, probably vote fraud and suppression, dereliction of duty before 9/11, and others.

McCain uses misconception on Iran to sell himself through fear

Doing what Republicans do best, McCain rallies support for himself by repeatedly stoking fear of Iran's belligerent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Playing upon the ignorance of the American people, and exposing his own, McCain often incorrectly portrays Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if Ahmadinejad has a significant role in formulating Iranian foreign policy. He doesn’t. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s National Security Council set Iran’s foreign policy, not Ahmadinejad. This gaffe even seems to be calculated at influencing the American people since McCain said:

I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.

Well, as long as Americans think that Ahmadinejad is the boogeyman, and McCain is the boogeyman killer, that's all that matters to McCain. The impression is more important than the reality to McCain. Focusing on the rants of Iran’s lunatic president enables McCain and other ignorant war hawks to create the impression that Iran is an irrational enemy with whom negotiation would be pointless. Not surprising from the same ignorant bunch who had no clue of the dynamics of Iraqi Sunni and Shiite sects before launching an invasion into the country.

McCain’s chief media adviser resigns rather than campaign against Obama

Mark McKinnon, John McCain’s chief media adviser said Tuesday he is stepping down rather than campaign against Barack Obama. "I just don't want to work against an Obama candidacy," said McKinnon. Electing Obama, he added, "would send a great message to the country and the world."
Nevertheless, McKinnon said he would vote for McCain. (yea right...)

In other campaign news, the Democratic candidates raised a combined total of $54 million in April to John McCain's $18 million (McCain's best month to date). Obama raised $31.9 million, Clinton - $22 million.

Bush uses EPA Administrator to manipulate environmental policy and lies about it

Watch Republicans do what they do best: evade issues and protect their corrupt superiors, in the case, President Bush. The Bush Administration LIED. They said Johnson 'made an independent decision' on California's request regulate auto emissions. (not the case - read below)

This video is awesome: Watch Administrator Stephen Johnson evade simple straightforward questions about whether or not he had certain discussions with Bush about key environmental issues. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa [R-CA] tried to come to Johnson's rescue but committee chair, Henry Waxman heatedly rejects Issa's interruptions and threatens to have him physically removed from the hearing ... YEA!!! Watch this AWESOME video.



C&L:

Why is it that conservatives consistently appoint people to head agencies who have nothing but contempt for the issues those agencies are supposed to oversee? ... The problem lies not with government, but rather with the stooges who run the government and appoint their incompetent cronies to fix problems they have no intention of fixing.

UPDATE - Bush Administration caught in yet another lie:

Despite the EPA Administrator's obvious effort to protect Bush, Wired and the LA Times report: Congress has a smoking gun proving the Bush Administration meddled in the Environmental Protection Agency ruling that denied California the authority to strictly regulate the amount of C02 and other auto emissions.

When he denied the state's request earlier this year, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claimed the ruling was his and his alone. Yet a House investigation that has examined more than 27,000 pages of records and the sworn testimony of eight EPA officials revealed that Johnson faced intense pressure from the Bush White House to reject the state's request, which would have required automakers to cut emissions of C02 and other pollutants by 30 percent by 2016.

Bottom line: the Bush Administration LIED. They said Johnson ''made an independent decision.''

Obama draws a crowd of 75,000 in Portland

Wow!

...while yesterday it was reported that another top McCain official resigns.

Bush: the pollution president

The Republican War on the Environment ruled illegal by the courts.

The Bush Administration has lost 77 out of 78 federal court cases involving threatened species since 2001. The courts have also largely rejected Bush's attempt to rewrite the Clean Air Act. This is all about Bush's attempt at payback to the nations top polluters in exchange for campaign contributions. This is how Republicans do business in their War on the Environment. It's a family tradition, Bush 41 broke the law 35 times in failing to issue regulations needed to carry out the Clean Air Act.

"In almost all cases, the EPA rules and decisions overturned by the courts benefited polluting industries at the expense of human health and the environment."

- Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles

The latest rejection of Bush policy came last week when a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a halt to three proposed logging projects in the northern Sierra. The ruling repudiated the administration's approach to forest management: selling large trees to loggers to finance removal of smaller trees under the guise of fire protection.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, was troubled by the Environmental Protection Agency's string of overturned rules. As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he asked the agency to add up time and money spent to develop and defend every rule or decision that has been legally challenged since Bush took office in 2001.

"The consequences of such losses are substantial delays in environmental protection, waste of government resources, and confusion and costs for regulated entities," Waxman wrote in his request.

This is how Republicans do business: Bush campaign contributions from industries that rape the environment for profit:

Industry -- 2000 and 2004 contributions
Oil and gas -- $4.2 million
Mining -- $584,000
Electric utilities -- $1.3 million
Timber -- $877,000

New Republican slogan: "Change"

Sound familiar?

So, the Republicans are asserting that Americans want a change from Republican policies by electing another Republican president? Brilliant. How stupid do they think we are?

Even more laughable, they adopted their slogan, "change you deserve" from a trademarked slogan for anti-depressant drug, Effexor XR.

What's more appropriate than this? According to the FDA - Effexor XR makes "unsubstantiated superiority claims," and is "associated with a number of serious risks" including risk of suicide. Now... that's change you deserve... lol!


How appropriate. Drug the American people with more lies and bullshit, maybe they'll be dumb enough to buy it (if they don't commit suicide).

Get to know the REAL McCain

McCain's dangerous backward foreign policy - a return to the Cold War

McCain apparently wants to start a new Cold War with Russia and China, undoing decades of diplomacy. His idea of kicking Russia out, and excluding China from the G8 group of industrialized nations (that comprise the majority of the world's production and industry), was called by Newsweek: "the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years."

So, McCain's vision includes increased tension with China, a country whose economy is growing at triple the rate of the US and is poised to overtake the US in superpower status, and Russia, one of the largest producers of oil and home to the majority of unaccounted for nuclear weapons. Now... that'll keep safe, don't ya think? More of the same arrogant bullshit isolationist antagonist foreign policy. Is that what we need?

Newsweek:

What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

The single most important security problem that the United States faces is securing loose nuclear materials. A terrorist group can pose an existential threat to the global order only by getting hold of such material. We also have an interest in stopping proliferation, particularly by rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. To achieve both of these core objectives—which would make American safe and the world more secure—we need Russian cooperation.

John McCain doesn't have to worry much about the future... in his 70's, he doesn't have much time left. Yes, vote for McSame - the same neo-con isolationist heavy handed cowboy diplomacy that has put America in it's present situation. Vote for McSame to return to international tension, more war, more hard times and an infinitely more dangerous world.

"We get off on war"

- Rod Parsley, John McCain's spiritual advisor

What we need to do is come to grips with the fact that the world is changing, the power is shifting, and that we should embrace that phenomenon rather than fight it. We need to bring countries like Russia and China into this global system. As China continues to grow strong, if we further alienate them, it will hurt America. Instead of jealously guarding our spot as 'the world's foremost superpower,' we need to think more about common goals, and what's going to create greater stability, not more tension.

Conservatives - buzz words and a general lack of knowledge

Watch this asshole - conservative talk radio host Kevin James belligerently trying to compare Neville Chamberlain to Obama referring to appeasement when he has absolutely no clue of what Neville Chamberlain did or what appeasement is. Kevin James was exposed for suffering from the same ailment that the White House Press Secretary suffers from when she admitted she didn't know what the Cuban missile crisis was. This common ailment, that afflicts many conservative zealots, is simply a general lack of knowledge. In this case it is inexcusable because he was using a reference to Chamberlain to make a point to smear Obama. Watch this - it's a great representation of how conservatives make their point, through yelling, repetition and parroting buzz words. In a word: ignorance.

Bush hypocrisy on "talking with terrorists"

Bush in Israel compared talking with terrorists with appeasing Nazis; asserting that any progress from such negotiations would be a "foolish delusion."

Ironic... what little success Bush has been able to claim with "the surge" in Iraq came from his own General's policy of talking with the very Sunni insurgents and terrorists who were killing Americans only months earlier. Not only did the US negotiate with the insurgents, the US armed them - and that's appeasement. I guess any small "success" in Iraq must be a "foolish delusion." Just reported today, the US is resuming appeasement of N. Korea with food shipments.

Today, CNN reported on the abject hypocrisy of Bush's statements:

It's also somewhat ahistorical. The president has authorized American diplomats to talk to the Iranians in Iraq. They talked to them in Afghanistan. They talked to them in Bonn, Germany, during the founding of the Afghan government during which the Iranians and Americans worked together. The president's own Secretary of Defense is right now arguing that we should be talking to the Iranians. We talked to the Soviet Union and China while they were forming revolutions all over the world and most recently, let's remember, that David Petraeus has talked to the Sunni insurgents and terrorists who were killing Americans only months earlier. And that - a large part of the success of the surge has been the willingness of Petraeus and the American military to talk to the people who they once called terrorists and insurgents.

None of this hypocrisy is surprising from an incompetent president who is a proven liar, who uses the rhetoric of fear to influence politics, or from McCain who proposes the continuation of a dangerous and isolationist foreign policy.

Bush compares diplomacy to Nazi appeasement

Bush in Israel compares talking with terrorists with appeasing Nazis. Clearly a shot at Obama. CNN reports:

White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Bush and his supporters criticize Obama for his willingness to talk to Iran. Funny, Bush's own Defense Secretary said yesterday the US needs to sit down and talk with Iran, and appease them with incentives:

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." -- Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense

Let's see, where has Bush's brand of cowboy diplomacy got us?

• The US was attacked on 9/11 after Bush ignored a string of dire and insistent warnings (he then went on vacation for a month)
  

• After Bush vowed to capture bin Laden, 6 months later he said he was "truly not that concerned about him" and ... even after cornering bin Laden at Tora Bora, he was allowed to escape.
  

• Bush invaded Iraq based on lies, supported by a mass propaganda effort, and in a botched plan, didn't provide for securing Iraq's borders. Now there is a quagmire. A situation that the former top commander in Iraq, Gen Sanchez called: "a nightmare with no end in sight."
  

• Al Qaeda has strengthened and a gov't report lambasted the Bush Adminitration for having no plan to do anything about it and stated because of this incompetence, another attack could be expected.
  

• Iran has become emboldened and belligerent. The Middle East has become increasingly destabilized. Who knows what this could hold for future oil prices and the US economy.

Question: with this record, is Bush in a position to criticize someone else's foreign policy?

Bush lies about giving up golf for the troops

Wow... what a sacrifice. Thousands killed and maimed and in tribute, Bush says he's giving up golf. But he even lied about that!

GW Bush said this week that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." Here's a great review and commentary on the 5/13/08 Politico interview of GW Bush. Well worth hearing. Part 1 -- Part 2

Does this feel like a rock concert or what? Obama in Michigan

Obama in Michigan with John Edwards, 12,000+ screaming fans .... and some serious energy in the air. (part 2 here)

"Hang that darky from a tree!" - an MTSU student's lesson in American bigotry

Racism rears it's ugly head

MTSU student Danielle Ross is mentioned at the the beginning of a Washington Post article on what her and her fellow campaigners have experienced while working for Barack Obama.

WaPost:

"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."

For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.

This next account doesn't surprise me. Growing up near Binghamton, NY on the PA border, we often referred to the rural PA county to our south as "Pennsyltucky." The following account seems to confirm the stereotype:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

Read all the gory details from the emerging racist movement against Obama. I guess this was inevitable in the country that enslaved Africans and brought us the KKK.

Whooped 'em again - "the Republican brand is badly damaged"

MSNBC and the AP have just called the Congressional special election for Democrat Travis Childer in Mississippi's 1st District, one of the most solidly Republican districts in the US. A district that went for GW Bush in 2004 by 25 percentage points. Despite the millions of dollars of attack ads, despite personal campaign visits by Dick Cheney and Mike Huckabee, the Democrats pick up another congressional seat, deep in the heart of Bush country, aka... Jesus Land. This is the seat that Trent Lott once held.

Responding to this result, Mike Huckabee remarked on MSNBC, "The Republican brand is badly damaged."

That's three of three special elections in solidly Republican districts that have been won by Democrats. Chris Matthews remarked... "it would be like a Republican winning in the Bronx." One of these three pickups was the former House Leader Denis Hastert's seat.

Sorry wingnuts. GAME OVER.

Democrat Childers didn't just win, he won solidly by 8 points in one of the strongest Republican districts is America. Yea! Check out this guy Greg Davis... does he look like a Republican or what?

Video: Some people lie and get away with it

Something to remember for the future.
(or watch on youtube)

McCain's spiritual advisor: "we get off on warfare"

McCain: Pastor Rod Parsley is "one of the truly great leaders in America ... a moral compass, spiritual guide"

Another extremist Christian nutcase is endorsing McCain. McCain says he is "greatful" and "very honored" for Parsley's "leadership and guidance."

Parsley guiding McCain. Here's what kind of guidance Parsley gives McCain:

"Mohammed received revelations from demon spirits, not from the living God. America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. ... We were built for the battle, we were created for the conflict, we get off on warfare"

Watch it

With 1.8 BILLION Muslims in the world, McCain will have his work cut out exterminating all of them.

A look inside the evangelical mind-set that gave America 8 years of George W. Bush

An inside view of Hagee's evangelical church camp indoctrination

This article was stunning. The adult version of "Jesus Camp," reporter Matt Taibbi joined Pastor Hagee's Cornerstone Church to attend a 'Christian Encounter Weekend' in the Texas hill country. What he observed was absolutely nothing short of psychological abuse and conditioning. You have to read it to believe what goes on in such evangelical ministries ... and this is no small wacky cult. This megachurch has 19,000 active members and a TV audience in the millions. Pastor Hagee has been an outspoken Christian Zionist and recent endorser of John McCain.

Taibbi, an atheist, wanted "to get a look inside the evangelical mind-set." And boy did he ever, what he found was scary.

The 'encounter' began with an imposing macho leader, gaining the emotional empathy of the crowd by telling a tearful story of how his father had failed him and was unfaithful to his mother. Confessions of this 'childhood wound' was the basis for gaining the required emotional leverage of members, setting up 'the deliverance' to come:

"The wound theory was a piece of schlock biblical Freudianism in which everyone had one traumatic event from their childhood that had left a wound. The wound necessarily had been inflicted by another person, and bitterness toward that person had corrupted our spirits and alienated us from God."

After mind numbingly long 14 hr days of group confessions, prayers and singing hymns, the flock would be gathered to hear the leader demonize everything from gays to Harry Potter. Indoctrinating the flock in a weakened state, as Taibbi observed, the crowd "swallowed whole" anything told to them:

Global warming denialist organization caught misrepresenting scientists research

The Heartland Institute has just been exposed (again) for what it is, a lying global warming denialist organization.

Outrage has ensued in the climate science community over Heartland's report: “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” so much so that Heartland was forced to change the title of the report, and put in a disclaimer stating:

"none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made"

45 angry scientists so far have responded to this report by demanding that their names be removed from this widely distributed report. The report is even said to have contained names of scientists who are unable to respond... because they are deceased.

This is how denialists make their case - by lies, manipulation, and disseminating propaganda. Here is a sample of some of the scientists who've responded to this disingenuous ploy:

"They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."-- Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." -- Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
-- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."
-- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

"I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."
-- Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

"Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."
-- Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

"I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist."
-- Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.

"Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat."
-- Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University

"Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"
-- Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Bush: "...history takes a long time for us to reach."

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure. More than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history.

I think Bush speaks best for himself:

“As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”

— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008

If I were a terrorist, I'd ....

If I were a terrorist, I'd ....

Who are the 28%ers?

Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history

This is no surprise. This was confirmed by a Gallup Poll last week and reaffirmed in today's CNN Poll - except the CNN poll is even worse for the president. Bush is the most unpopular President in modern American history. This is part of his legacy that will go into the history books.

71% of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling his job.
Only 15% think America is on the right track.

CNN:

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark." -- CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

What is surprising is that 28% of Americans still approve of the job Bush is doing. Both Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings but never higher disapproval ratings. A stunning 73% see America on the wrong track, only 15% think the opposite.

Why do 28% still approve despite the direction of the country and Bush's multitude of failures? Who are these 28%ers and why do they think the way they do? I think I'd have to chalk it up to a number of things:

• A new breed of authoritarian partisans who care more about perceived principles they have formed based on insufficient or faulty information (a prime authoritarian characteristic). Stubbornly cult-like in their tenacity, they seem to put their 'personal principles' and perceptions above reality and what is good for America. Anyone who disagrees, they dismiss as the enemy, BDS, aiding the terrorists, etc.... Demographics reveal that these people are primarily white Christians. Studies have found Christian fundamentalists are often authoritarian by nature, and conservatives, stubborn by nature (failing to change habitual response patterns). Denial is very strong among those with this mindset.
  

• The concentrated misinformation campaign by the right wing media reinforcing false information already spewed by a lying administration. The latest - the vast Pentagon Analyst Program revealed to be nothing more than an expert propaganda program endorsed and operated by the Bush Administration. This is classic example of the weak-minded being manipulated by fear, 9/11 being the catalyst they keep coming back to.

You can tell who they are, they tend to be the least aware... only getting their 'news' from places like NRO, Hot Air, News Busters, Fox News, Little Green Footballs, etc... you can find a list in the sidebar of many 28%er bloggers. Many of them don't want to talk about politics. When engaged, they revert to fear-based discussions of jihad, the evils of the Koran, etc... It's not surprising that the huge Pentagon propaganda scandal or the GAO report showing the failure of Bush's war on al Qaeda never made it to the Drudge Report. Wonder why? That's called "fair and balanced" in Bushie authoritarian land.

FOX NEWS: Rev. Wright recruiting for al Qaeda

I kid you not.

On the Rev. Wright News Channel, Col. Oliver North asserted:

"this man has become a recruiting campaign for Al Qaeda and all the enemies of America.”

We also learned yesterday from the same "news source" that “the problem with Obama is that in his adult life, all his choices of associates seem to come from a very particular, narrow, far left fringe.”

Misrepresenting Obama, is this network's idea of excellent coverage of the political issues America cares about in this election. Instead of being informed, it's probably better to be afraid.

With such fair and balanced 'information' ... no wonder people are so well informed.