Their ability to survive depends on their ability to cover up....

[kentuck]

..and their ability to present a consistent propaganda line to their supporters. So far, they have been very successful. They have not been pressed to come clean about any of their questionable activities by the TV media or the press. They were permitted to keep the energy documents of VP Cheney secret, even though they may have been directly connected to the pre-emptive Iraq invasion. They have been permitted a "get out of jail" free card over the Plame affair, where they may have endangered many lives in the intelligence community. They were never questioned about their reported comments about a "carpet of bombs" or a "carpet of gold" that was offered to the Taliban before we were struck on 9/11. They have even been able to escape with downright lies about WMDs and nuclear capabilities of Saddam Hussein. They have parried every charge by the very weak opposition and the press has stood on the sidelines as a disinterested observer.

[Homer12]

1. I agree, but with a few Caveats

They have covered up well, but each time their is a new scandal and a new lie uncovered they themslves lose credability and doubt over Bushco's integrity is planted in the national psyche (ala Clinton era).

We really just have to ask the questions When and How they will be completely exposed?



Then we have to ask the question what will they DO when they are exposed?

We all know they can't take humiliation, we know and they know they have commited crimes.

My guess is when that happens we will have a disastear worse than 9/11 or get into a war far worse than Iraq.

What will Buscho Do?

[ewagner]

2. I am also surprised

They were never questioned about their reported comments about a "carpet of bombs" or a "carpet of gold" that was offered to the Taliban before we were struck on 9/11.

This has been reported but has received very little traction in the court of public opinion. In fact, the most recent surveys I've seen, still show that the public thinks Bush* is honest and in genral a nice guy. Some major scandal needs to go down befroe the public perception of Bush* will change. With a little luck, the new "insiders" books coming out will chip away at his "likeability" and then some of these disgraces will start to get some traction.

What do you think?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Don't know about the general public

but a friend of mine (who is a Republican in the health care industry) says that Bush's behavior is that of an addict. I said, "I thought he gave up the stuff at 40." She said, "Maybe so, but his behavior shows that he is still acting as if he's addicted."

[salib]

3. "carpet of ...."?

I had no idea what that was about, so I "googled" it. Here is what I found:

http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/carpet.htm

I think one needs to be VERY VERY CAREFUL and THOUGHTFUL and CAREFUL before making allegations about * and company. If one simply mentions a litany of "claims" or condemnations that could easily be wrong, then *'s handlers will simply say something like "See! It is all without merit! Why do we even need to waste our time with this." Thus, they have their ammunition, their non-denial denial, or whatever, and the real issues are lost, or worse.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Not many blanks get fired at DU, carpet

We've got plenty of real ammunition.

may the truth be revealed. may justice prevail.

[salib]

7. Huh?

Is this a reply to what I just wrote or just a general statement?

[kentuck]

5. Holland, if you read carefully..

You will notice that I say "They were never questioned about their reported comments about a "carpet of bombs" or a "carpet of gold" that was offered to the Taliban before we were struck on 9/11"

"reported comments"... If there are reported comments about something so important, do you think it is not worth following up with questions to find out if there is any truth to it or do you simply ignore it because it might be uncomfortable to the thought processes?

[salib]

10. "reported comments"

Thanks for the clarification. However, I did read carefully. Simply stating something, or repeating someone else's statement about something, does not make it worthy of insisting that * and company even be questioned about it, let alone answer. I can find plenty of fodder in the National Enquirer, yet I would not simply repeat it and insist on questions from the "mainstream" press directed at gov't officials as to the veracity of that fodder. Heresay is often more damaging to the one making the "spurious accusations", not to the "accused."

It makes it so much easier for * if the "shotgun-style" claims leveled at him are mostly unverifyable (thus ignorable) at best and lame at worst. That is a wonderful way to make someone like *, who has so many incredible gaffs, look sharp.

[kentuck]

13. I disagree. This is a much more important charge than say....

what brand of pretzel did Bush choke on? Nobody cares about the latter but the first is an important charge which a vigilant press would not simply sweep under the rug as 'heresay' until it is proven thus.

[salib]

14. Proven heresay

How does one "prove" that something is heresay? The more important the charge, the greater the burden of proof is ON THE ACCUSOR, not on the accused. Right?

All I am saying is that if one wishes to be taken seriously, then one must seriously pursue being accurate. "Importance" is not the issue. Accuracy, verifiability (if that is a word), not potential importance, is what must be considered. Otherwise we are just "pissing in the wind", and * will be right to say so.

[kentuck]

15. Do you consider what Paul O'Neil is saying as "heresay" also?

Just curious?

[are_we_united_yet]

17. OK let us use your premise in an example:

"The British Government has just learned ....." rest of sixteen words:
Accuser: George W. Bush
Accuracy(scale 0-10): 0

"We know where the weapons are ..... Tikrit North West South..."
Accuser: Donald Rumsfeld
Accuracy(scale 0-10): 0


"...These are not lies. These assertions are based on fact..."
Accuser: Colin Powell
Accuracy(scale 0-10): 0


"Saddam is not disarming......."
Accuser: George W. Bush
Accuracy(scale 0-10): 0

"Saddam continues to defy the international community ......"
Accuser: Condi
Accuracy(scale 0-10): 0


(need I go on? The answer is no)


And to quote you and juxtapose the above statements:
"All I am saying is that if one wishes to be taken seriously, then one must seriously pursue being accurate. "Importance" is not the issue. Accuracy, verifiability (if that is a word), not potential importance, is what must be considered."

So we can probably resort to saying absolutely nothing about the W admin here at DU based on their public statements.

Hey, thanks for helping us figure that out.

[Skittles]

6. oh yeah, Holland

THAT proves it. PLEASE.

[salib]

11. Again ... huh?

What? Who needs to prove what? If one offers an innuendo ("carpet of bombs"), then that person has the burden of proof, I think. Right?

[cthrumatrix]

9. let's not forget Dr Dean and Gen Clark in 2004.....truth is truth and they

are not going to let these lies sit unchalleged and the media will have no place to go....they are caught.

[KayLaw]

12. When is Clarke's book due out?

That should explain a lot about the many warnings of the events of 9/11 and Bush's reaction.

[Entente]

16. Saddam Hussein coverup now

How come the media got suddenly so quiet ab the capture of Saddam Hussein?


This smells funny to me.