Of course, any reasonable person knows that the Bush 43 Admin loves to break laws and as you can guess, they're at it again with the fake news.
This is from an [http://ap.org|AP] [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/school_ads|article] over at News.Yahoo.com:
The Bush administration has promoted its education law with a video that comes across as a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid with taxpayer money.
The government used a similar approach this year in promoting the new Medicare law and drew a rebuke from the investigative arm of Congress, which found the videos amounted to propaganda in violation of federal law.
The Education Department also has paid for rankings of newspaper coverage of the No Child Left Behind law, a centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. Points are awarded for stories that say President Bush and the Republican Party are strong on education, among other factors.
The news ratings also rank individual reporters on how they cover the law, based on the points system set up by Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the government.
The video and documents emerged through a Freedom of Information Act request by People for the American Way, a liberal group that contends the department is spending public money on a political agenda. The group sought details on a $700,000 contract Ketchum received in 2003 from the Education Department.
 Click here to watch the "report" and judge for yourself if it's propaganda. |
What's really upsetting is that the Congress found the first wave of fake news from the Bush 43 Admin to be a violation of Federal Law. Did any heads roll? Of course not. Does this mean there is absolutely no deterent for the Bush 43 Admin to break Federal Law again and produce more fake news? YOU BET!
And that's just what has happened--right down to the "reporter" of the "story," Karen Ryan--who doesn't even exist.
Hell, if there were no Iraq Attack, no 911, and no other lies the Bush 43 Admin was responsible for, Bush breaking Federal Law would probably be enough to get him impeached.
Too bad NO ONE in Washington is paying attention to just how much Bush is getting away with.
Folks, this is what it looks like to live in a dictatorship. Honestly. Sure, Bush doesn't have "rape rooms" and "torture chambers" like Saddam did--at least not in this country. But take a good, hard look at Bush 43 and you'll see that he has made a great many choices that have been illegal. From violating the UN Charter with the Iraq Attack or the Patriot Act which removes fundamental aspects of privacy rights from every American citizen, to being 100% completely wrong about the WMD in Iraq to the obvious deceit he practices every day, this man acts like Saddam, himself. Like he can do anything--flaunt his disregard for the opinion of the world, the American people and even some of his own staff--and never get in trouble. How much less did Nixon do than Bush 43? Nixon resigned in disgrace? Why isn't Bush resigning in disgrace?
One reason: He's a dictator.
Princeton University's Wordnet defines "Dictator" as the following:
1: a speaker who dictates to a secretary or a recording machine
2: a ruler who is unconstrained by law
3: a person behaves in an tyrannical manner
Wow, Bush fits two of those descriptions!
Remember, you don't need to be Adolf Hitler or Darth Vader or even Saddam Hussein to be a dictator. Much of what George W. Bush has done in office can be easily defined by the second two definitions listed above. It may not be easy to admit or even to think about, but Bush is a dictator.
Prove me wrong in November. What do you say? Deal?
From AP.org and News.Yahoo.com :
Bush Ad Appears to Be News Story
Mon Oct 11, 7:55 AM ET
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has promoted its education law with a video that comes across as a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid with taxpayer money.
The government used a similar approach this year in promoting the new Medicare law and drew a rebuke from the investigative arm of Congress, which found the videos amounted to propaganda in violation of federal law.
The Education Department also has paid for rankings of newspaper coverage of the No Child Left Behind law, a centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. Points are awarded for stories that say President Bush and the Republican Party are strong on education, among other factors.
The news ratings also rank individual reporters on how they cover the law, based on the points system set up by Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the government.
The video and documents emerged through a Freedom of Information Act request by People for the American Way, a liberal group that contends the department is spending public money on a political agenda. The group sought details on a $700,000 contract Ketchum received in 2003 from the Education Department.
One service the company provided was a video news release geared for television stations. The video includes a news story that features Education Secretary Rod Paige and promotes tutoring now offered under law.
The story ends with the voice of a woman saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."
It does not identify the government as the source of the report. It also fails to make clear the person purporting to be a reporter was someone hired for the promotional video.
Those are the same features � including the voice of Karen Ryan � that were prominent in videos the Health and Human Services Department used to promote the Medicare law and were judged covert propaganda by the Government Accountability Office in May.
The Education Department's video uses "the same exact mode of operation," said Nancy Keenan, education policy director at People for the American Way. The video encourages students to take advantage of tutoring and says that families give the idea an "A-plus."
"It's basically propaganda, not general information about a program," she said. "And it's portraying to the American public, via a video news release, that it's news."
The Education Department says the video was clearly marked as being a product of the agency when it was given to TV stations. Still, since the GAO report came out, the department has stopped using the narration-styled video news releases, spokeswoman Susan Aspey said.
Aspey defended the video as a way to help people understand the law's offer of tutoring. "Frankly, one has to wonder about the motives of those who are against informing parents that they have options," she said.
At least one television station in New York used the package in 2003, substituting its own reporter for the voiceover but following the script and video provided by the department. The department, in turn, put the text of that station's story on its Web site.
Government press offices play a key role in sharing information and pitching story ideas, but sending out videos featuring "pretend" news reports is wrong, said Al Tompkins, who teaches broadcast reporting at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists.
"Let the alert be loud and clear: Don't use this stuff," Tompkins said.
The Public Relations Society of America advises its nearly 20,000 members not to use the word "reporting" in its video news releases if the narrator is not a reporter.
The GAO declined comment on the Education Department's video and its similarities to the Medicare video. Both promote laws that the administration has highlighted during Bush's re-election campaign as successes despite debate about how they are being implemented.
In ranking newspaper coverage of No Child Left Behind, Ketchum developed a 100-point scale. Stories got five points each for positive messages, such as mentions that the law gives choices to parents and holds schools accountable.
Five points also went to stories that send a message that "The Bush Administration/the GOP is committed to education."
Stories lost five points for negative messages, including claims that the law is not adequately funded or is too tough on states.
The news review for the department also rated education reporters, giving higher scores to their stories if they were deemed positive.
"The government should spend money that benefits the people. How did this benefit the people?" Tompkins said about the ratings of reporters.
In one period, for example, Ketchum rated reporters at USA Today and at newspapers in Atlanta; Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio; Harrisburg, Pa.; Louisville, Ky.; Portland, Ore.; Minneapolis; and Salt Lake City.
Asked if the ratings influenced how the department treats certain reporters, Aspey said: "We treat all reporters fairly, because that's our job."
Copyright (c) 2004 The Associated Press
How could you think that George W. Bush is a criminal? Are you so easily brainwashed by "hip" liberals that you can't see that what we're doing in Iraq is the next inevitable step in securing world order? Are we supposed to hide in our country, hoping that another attack doesn't happen? These terrorists probably wouldn't miss the chance to kill you and your family! So here's what you need to do--put away your petty bias towards conservative Republicans, and open your eyes to the straightforward, easy-to-understand logic that George Bush has applied to his decisions. And, oh, by the way, being a dictator requires you to actually gain power that you didn't have before. Bush is President--the very word defines what he can and can't do. He acts completely within his legal ability. If you're talking about an imbalance of power, you should look at the liberal judges on the Supreme Court "interpreting" the law. ("Right to privacy?"--this means nothing!!) So here's what you need to do--put away your petty bias towards conservative Republicans, and open your eyes to the straightforward, easy-to-understand logic that George Bush has applied to his decisions. Have a great, conservative day.
ReplyDeleteHa! You're a riot, bro! You almost had me going with all that stuff--I thought you were actually serious!
ReplyDeleteHow could I think George W. Bush is a criminal? Why, because he's broken the law, of course!
I'm sure I don't have to remind you that the Constitution states that any treaty the federal government agrees to is binding on all American citizens, therefore when Bush violated the UN Charter when he invaded Iraq he violated both International Law and Federal Law.
But I'm sure you know that already!
You're obviously a bright fellow, Mr. Turpin, so I probably don't have to go into the fact that Bush told us all that there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was, in fact, a threat to America, when, in fact, he was not and did not have any WMD. Being wrong about a war that is costing American tax payers many billions of dollars may not be illegal, but it sure does show that he's betrayed the public trust--and hey! I'm sure you'll remember that this is the minimum requirement for impeachment! That's right! Obviously, Mr. Turpin, here, is a bright guy, so he, no doubt, is already familiar with the fact that there is no requirement that a sitting President break a law before being impeached. He just needs to violate the public trust.
I'd say taking intelligence from people who have been found to be clearly in the wrong and then giving them medals would be a violation of the public trust.
And hell, since he's already violated the Federal Law that is the UN Charter (as discussed above), we've already got enough to start impeachment hearings.
Then, there are the Government Accountability Office's findings that determined that various departments of the government (at least two of them, that I know of) under the Bush 43 administration violated the Covert Propaganda law that prohibits the government-sourced production of propaganda without crediting it's source as the federal government.
That's just what I've come across, I'm sure in all of the research you have done, Mr. Turpin, you've come across the above and a lot more. That's assuming you've done reasearch beyond that of some right-leaning, neo-conservative-run website.
After all, it would be just as stupid to take your research from right-leaning sites as it would to take it from only left-leaning websites, right? Ha, I'm sure you know that.
I mean, hey, he is pissing true conservative values down America's leg. I'm sure you're aware that it was conservative voices that kept America out of World War II as long as it did. Roosevelt, who got us into the war, was a Democrat.
But again, I'm sure you know all about all of these things.
As regular readers know (I'm assuming you're not a regular reader), I could list a great many more examples of how Bush is up to no good and how "securing the world order" is not a something America should solely be in charge of. :)
Why did I even go on like that when you just ignore my post? You are a fucking ass and should go back to watching O'Reilly and your conservative brainwashing shows and stop brainlessly repeating the Republican party line. Unless you like sounding like a messanger boy for a political party that wants to obtain world domination.
ReplyDeleteOh, thanks for enlightening me with your all-knowing, godlike mind. I think it's amazing how you seem to be able to look into anyone's mind and know exactly what that person knows or what he has done in the past. I had no idea that Bush himself was the one who determined that there were WMD's in Iraq. Nor did I have any idea that Bush so blatantly lied to the public.
ReplyDeleteYou libs keep finding new ways to tick me off. First of all, Bush used something called military intelligence--being such a resourceful guy, I'm sure you know that these are the people that reviewed satellite pictures of Iraq and determined that there were WMD's. But now they're gone! So, here's how liberal logic works:
(Bush says that there are WMD's) + (No WMD's were found) = (Bush is a liar and a criminal!!)
What about the enemy's ability to MOVE THEM??? DESTROY THEM???
What about the chemical weapons plants that WERE FOUND????
And how about the fact that Saddam refused to let the UN inspect his country for WMD's--breaking his CONTRACT???
You don't need much research to determine that it was sheer common sense to oust Saddam Hussein.
The point is that Bush had nothing to do with finding out if their were WMD's--he listened to his advisers, like any other President would have done. But here's were your argument about this really crashes and burns: WMD's were only a part of the reason we went to war. Saddam was harboring terrorists in his country--something we just can't tolerate. Like I said in my last e-mail: This war is the next inevitable step in securing the world. We have to get rid of these terrorists who want kill us. And think about the progress being made in Iraq. As a liberal, you should be supportive of the new freedoms being offered to women and minorities in Iraq. But before you say "Progress? What about all the killing going on?" Let me suggest that you probably have no concept of patriotism, which is what drives the Iraqis--and the soldiers for that matter--to keep fighting to construct their country. This is very simple and has nothing to do with how WWII started (thanks for impressing me with your knowledge).
What's amazing to me is how passionate liberals can get while arguing AGAINST protecting the country, protecting the world, and spreading freedom afar. It's exactly this kind of mentality that is exposing the libs for who they really are--bitter liars. I've hope you've had a nice couple of decades, because the reign of the liberals is coming to an end.
What? Not answering my post? You're obviously a moron who thinks that everyone using the Internet is online 24/7. Get some brains (preferably some that haven't been brainwashed yet).
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable. Only a complete idiot would make a post two minutes after his last saying "What? Not answering? You're an a$$," and then not answer the next post. Who are you trying to impress? Your two or three "regulars" on your site? I think I'm probably your most "regular" member now, just because of this! And I don't know if I'll leave any time soon because I just can't get enough of blasting your egotistical ideals!
ReplyDeleteWow, courting a banning are you? First off, I didn't post again to say "what not answering" I realized that you're just a typical boring Republican who can't tell the difference between an independent and a liberal or the difference between a real conservative and the neo-con-world-domination type of person you clearly are.
ReplyDeleteI present an argument in my post and you ignore all of it. Why should I respect you at all if you don't approach any of my arguments in any specific way? I am looking at a cold, hard, factual interpretation of the law and you are drawing your opinion and conclusions from Fox News and other right-wing propganda sources. You can post again if you promise to actually adress my points as opposed to just saying the opposite of what I am saying like most typical neo-con Republicans do these days.
And nice one attacking my character rather than my argument. Typical Republican "I want to rule the world" Fantasylander.
Once again, playing the old, "Look at All the Research I've Done" song. And yet all of your "research" seems to be made up of assumptions. You assume you know everything that caused Bush to make his decisions. You assume you know the whole story behind WMD's in Iraq. And above all, you assume your sources are completely valid. You assume that I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I'm a Republican, so I must be stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, that all articles and posts are made by people--people with their own political ideals. Therefore, you can't say that any source is more valid than another. Rush Limbaugh, for example, may be a very valid source simply because he presents information that may be scarce in the mainstream media--even thought he is a conservative talk show host. But my ideals come from observations of many speeches and writings by people all over the political spectrum.
And by the way, I attacked your main arguments quite clearly--based on reason. The problem is you keep throwing in nonsensical information that has very little to do with our topic. We're talking about facts and legitimacy--not about who did what in WWII.
Also, I'm fairly certain you attacked my character by calling me a F****** A$$. Did you not read my post until after you posted yours? That's ignoring my argument, you hypocrite.
And now, if I might go off topic:
You're not fooling anyone by your "Not liberal, not conservative" policy. You are about as liberal as they come. "Anti-abortion, but Pro-Choice..." Hmmm. And you say you're for family values? I've never met a liberal that said he was against the family! You fit so perfectly the image of a liberal, it's scary. But libs are nothing to be scared of--they're just a bunch of bitter, anti-Christian elitists who believe the people are too stupid to take care of themselves, so the Government has to. Ever read the book Brave New World? It's about what the world would eventually be like if liberals gained control. Scary stuff.
I'm going to level with you, Pete. I stumbled upon this website looking if anyone had put Firefox on the Nintendo DS yet. (Wouldn't that be cool?) So, I noticed that you had written an anti-Bush article. Something happened. Usually, I don't do this, but I got really mad, and decided to write back--angrily. But I think I've cooled off now. And at least some good came out of it--I put my writing skills to use over summer vacation, giving me some practice for my AP English class this year. Anyway, hope you've cooled off too (if you were ever hot-blooded). See you later.
Well, as you can see, Turpin, I've had to ban you. I'm done replying to comments like yours by posters who use doublespeak to "win" your arguments.
ReplyDeleteWorld domination is what you neo-cons want--it's that plain and simple. Why not just admit it instead of trying to bullshit us with lines like "Al Qaeda could get its hands on a nuke" and the like? You and your kind want America to reach out across the globe and control everything--one government, one way of life, one authority to rule all of humanity. You see nothing wrong with this and see everything wrong with the rest of the world.
You can't see how morally corrupt you've become. You can't see how anti-American you've become. You and your kind of redefined what "America" even means and now you plan to spread this new American virus across the planet.
You make me sick.
You call yourself a conservative and say that I'm the brainwashed one and yet you think it's fine for one government to march in and tell another government what to do. Would you be agreeing if America was the government being told what to do?
No, I'm not addressing your points directly because I've done so to others of your kind so many times before. None of you listen to reason. None of you listen to your own morals. All you listen to is your own fear. When any of you are presented with counterpoints that slam your argument you suddenly vanish from my site because you're too embarrassed to admit you've lost. Well, I'm saving you the effort Turpin. I'm forcing you out of the game.
Oh and one last thing: You and every other neo-conservative who posts on my site must really have sad, putrid, useless lives. You've nothing better to do than to sit around and have retarded arguments with people you know you can't sway to your point of view. You're a pitiful masochist who needs the annoyance of others to make yourself feel like you have a purpose.
Me? I'm trying to provide information and opinions to those who are looking for them. I'm not fighting a losing and pointless battle like you are.
Perhaps if we just leave them alone the won't bomb us any more!
ReplyDeleteThats the mindset, so go ahead and vote demacrat, and we'll all stick our head in the sand and hope the bad guys leave us alone. I mean really, how short sighted!
The Peats of this word fear us more than the people that are trying to kill us, unreal!
Look everybody! It's a Bush apologist! Or are you just being sarcastic? It's so hard to tell over the 'net.
ReplyDeleteDon't you get it? It's all of our mucking about in Muslim countries' affairs that pissed off these Muslim extremists in the first place. If we stopped throwing our white male weight around (or at the very least talked to them about their concerns) they wouldn't feel so cornered/powerless and wouldn't resort to violence.
Beyond that, I say, yes, let them try to kill us here. I'm tired of giving up too many of my freedoms just to live with an illusion of security. If the "evil doers" really want to kill us, they'll find a way even if we lock ourselves in our homes and never go out.
This whole thing is just a scam to keep us afraid and the Bush Admin (and their kind) in power. Open your eyes--wake up and smell the manipulation.
I`m nursing student (MD) from Iran. I want to know more about stress and memory problem. Because of war, it is common complain in our country. WBR LeoP
ReplyDelete