Hey DU! This is it! Now is the time to "Strike while the Iron is HOT!

[Up2Late]

With *'s numbers in the toilet, and the DSM FINALLY starting to get some press coverage, It's time!

It's time to dust off everything that you WANTED the MSM to pay attention to and ALL the Evidence of the Lies that the WH laughed off as politics and LW propaganda. Because RIGHT NOW, their is a LOT of doubt out their, among the "Undecided Voters" and the "Just following the Heard" voters, who only do what the glowing box in the corner tells them to do.

As pointed out in another thread today, It's starting to look like the RW pundits, who pushed hard for War and backed every WH lie, are beginning a, "well of course * was lying, you'd have to be an idiot not to know that" effort to shift the blame to their AUDIENCE.
This IS the time we have been waiting and working for, now is the time to deliver that wake-up call.<>

What */WH Lies did you think were dismissed over the last few year? :shrug:

Looking for Ideas here.:think:

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. I'm not sure this is what you mean but

I heard chimpy on the radio today and I believe this is a direct quote: "We went to war because we were attacked." Now, that just doesn't quite sit right with me.


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/665903

[Up2Late]

5. What I'm saying is that their are a LOT of people scratching...

...their heads right now, wondering what else that we on the left tried to tell them, and the RW Pundits told them WE were lying, was IN FACT a WH/RW lie. We need to target those confused people NOW.

[mtnsnake]

6. If Chimpy said that, it sounds to me like he's getting a little defensive

ins't it? Maybe he's got some real worries about getting impeached?

[calimary]

14. Love it. "We went to war because we were attacked."

So why did we go to war against a country THAT DID NOT ATTACK US?

[Up2Late]

17. I see a full page ad with that one

And It doesn't need to be in "American Standard" or "Fortune Magazine," It could be in "Rolling Stone" or "People" or "US" etc.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Suggestion

Why not have mediamatters.org, the DNC, and a few others purchase "air time" and launch a series of commercials? Since it is not a political year, so to speak, it would be a great way to side-swipe them. Plus we can get the message out in little blurbs, since the majority of the 'brain-dead' can only handle small doses. And, don't limit it to the TV, place ads in magazines that are popular on the right or target "soccer moms," etc.

[Up2Late]

8. Exactly, my thoughts exactly

Hey, Mid term elections are NOT that far away, now is the time to plant the seeds of Doubt in the RW and especially in the Radical RW senators and Congress people.
Start now, and it will begin to snow ball.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. How's about...

Picture it with me...a 30 sec spot. Have the actual text of the Downing Street Minutes with the date bolded, then a clip of Shrub speaking about WMDs (DSM...(I'm paraphrasing here) "we need a reason"), then on to Colin Powell at the UN (DSM...we must have UN approval or attempt to get it), news report "there are no WMD, bad intelligence (DSM...we will fix the intelligence around our needs), then Shrub saying we want a peaceful resolution (DSM...Shrub wants to go to war)...Finally, a line stating "who was mislead?" a pic of Shrub "was it him?" Then a pic of the US, "or was it us?"

How's that? Make ANY sense? I can see it in my head, so it is hard to put in writing.

[Up2Late]

13. And throw in about a dozen "Meet the Press" and whatever...

those other Sunday Morning are called, which have be come the "set the agenda for the week" in the WH view, "Roll out this weeks lies" in our view shows, clips with V.P.Dick, Condi, Rummy, etc., all repeating the same lies.

We could do a lot with stuff like that.

[EVDebs]

3. The theme you're looking for : "What ELSE have they lied about ?"

Can be beaten like a drum for quite a long time, IMHO. Meantime, Bushites will be claiming powerless Dems are 'obstructionists'...which plays just fine when the public believes what is being obstructed is even more LIES and QUAGMIRES.

Kinda can't lose when Bush and Co. is busy beating themselves up...BTW, don't get in their way !

My other cause-non-celebre is the hidden media coverage of the Wargames on 9-11 (Vigilant Warrior, etc). Oh media, media, come out come out, wherever you are ! Olly Olly Oxen Free !

When praytell will they front page that information ? And Ptech being covered up...shame on the media.

[Up2Late]

11. You got it, that's one, and guess what, I just heard those...

(sorry,I was right the first time)

"hidden War Games" discussed on NPR, this week by a commentator who was asked by Robert Siegel about stopping Terrorism.

I think it was on "All Things Considered" Thursday, but it could have been Wednesday. Here's a link: I'll look for the exact link in a minute:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=06-16-2005&view=storyview>

[tmooses]

4. The line about "everybody knows he was lying" is misleading.

It's a typical RW tactic of 10% truth/90% spin-lie. Take this quote from one of the articles on Yahoo: "Knight Ridder, for example, reported on Feb. 13, 2002, that the president had decided in principle on overthrowing the Iraqi leader and ordered "a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps" to achieve that goal.

Six days later, then-Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., visited U.S. Central Command headquarters and, Graham said in a memoir, was told by Gen. Tommy Franks that despite ongoing operations in
Afghanistan, "military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq." Franks denied making the comment. "


There is a world of difference between deciding in principle to remove Saddam and deliberately cooking the intelligence and lying to Congress to commit our military to battle. I think this is a point that should be made. Bush and Co. are the biggist "revisionists" around, and depend
on the lack of criticism of their propaganda to sway public opinion.

[Up2Late]

21. Exactly, but it looks like that IS the "New" spin that they are...

...starting to roll out, that is why we need to counteract this new spin before it really gets going, and the confused/easily lead forget the doubts, they have now, about what they remember.

If they (WH spinners) are allowed to go unchecked, we will have missed another great opportunity to refocus the debate.

[rasputin1952]

7. Can anyone come up with one time bush & Co have ever...

told the TRUTH?

Everything about this administration is lyiing to cover failure after failure. NOTHING these people have done has benefitted this nation as a whole. All that get something from this group of thieves and thugs, belong to the rich and 'elite' factions.

bush and his minions are the most foul bastards ever to gain power, and I will be dancing when the leave; whether in 2008, or before, if we can get the cretin impeached and tried.

[Up2Late]

10. Exactly, we need to list or just gather up all those things that...

...even most of us have forgotten, that got swept under the carpet by the MSM and the WH diversions and see if we can get those lies and failers Media coverage NOW.

[ellenfl]

9. here's 2

1. dubya backed an investigation into 9/11 - in fact dubya objected to ANY investigation into 9/11
2. dubya proposed a homeland security agency - in fact he objected to it initially and only agreed to the dept of homeland security when it was forced upon him. i think it was a dem idea.

ellen fl

[ElectroPrincess]

15. Yes, why have Homeland Security Department when your

main aim is to *gut* the government and transfer the lion's share of the wealth to your rich relatives and friends ... they're all invested up to their eyeballs in OIL or companies who profit massively from the Military-Industrial Complex.

Hell, Homeland Security doesn't make Bush-Co. richer save for a few corporate associates. It only protects us "little" people,i.e., the NON-investor classes. Bush-Co. only wishes to make his LARGE contributers richER. :P

[Up2Late]

22. Department of Homeland Security is a Huge Joke, a BAD joke...

Mother Jones did an article about them (I think it was in January 2005) and exposed it for the lie that it is, but, of course, this didn't really break through the Media Bubble.

I'll look for that one too.

[Up2Late]

30. Here the Mother Jones Artical, it's a very good read, an will upset...

(...most here who have always had their doubts about The "Department Homeland Security.")

(Click Here) News: It was billed as America's frontline defense against terrorism. But badly underfunded, crippled by special interests, and ignored by the White House, the Department of Homeland Security has been relegated to bureaucratic obscurity.



By Matthew Brzezinski

September/October 2004 Issue

Obscurely tucked away in a quiet residential neighborhood of Washington, the Department of Homeland Security is far removed from the columned federal buildings downtown. Drive by its fortified main gates, as thousands of motorists do each day, and you probably won't even know it's there. No sign announces the department's subleased headquarters, and nothing indicates that the jumble of red-brick colonial structures inside the Nebraska Avenue Complex of the Washington Naval District houses the largest government agency in the United States.

My initial reaction when I presented myself at the small guardhouse at the NAC, as the Navy's intelligence complex is known, was that I was in the wrong place. But no, the security guard assured me, this was it. "Building 3," he added, sliding a plastic-laminated entry pass embossed with maritime insignia through a slot in the Plexiglas partition.

I had come to the NAC as one of the first journalists to get an inside look at what was billed as the most ambitious government overhaul since the creation of the Pentagon in 1947. Unveiled on March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has been touted as the Bush administration's bold response to the new threats facing America in the post-Cold War world of global terrorism. Composed of 22 formerly separate federal agencies, it boasts 186,200 employees. Its far-flung operations are funded by a budget of nearly $27 billion—roughly the equivalent of Microsoft's revenues. On any given day, these megabucks go to screening 1.5 million airline passengers, inspecting 57,000 trucks and shipping containers, and making 266 arrests and 24 drug seizures. Each day, the department reviews 2,200 intelligence reports and cables, issues information bulletins to as many as 18,000 recipients, and trains 3,500 federal officers from 75 different agencies. It deploys 108 patrol aircraft, has a fleet of more than 350,000 vehicles, operates 238 remote video surveillance systems, and stands watch over 8,000 federal facilities, ports, power plants, tunnels, and bridges. And that's just a sampling of DHS's myriad activities, which the agency has posted on its website to give taxpayers a taste of what they get for $75 million a day in security spending.

(more at link above)

[Up2Late]

32. Here's a relate (short) artical, This is exactly what I'm talking about!

Nickel and Diming Homeland Security

News: Homeland Security spending compared with its Iraq equivalent. Don't you feel safer?



September/October 2004 Issue

Bush administration officials used to say that the war on terrorism had to be fought "in Baghdad, not Boston." You don't hear that line much anymore, yet it's clearly reflected in the administration's spending priorities. The war in Iraq so far has cost $150 billion; for the Department of Homeland Security, the administration has allocated $27 billion this year, with the bulk of that going to the routine operations of agencies like the Customs Service. When it comes to new programs to make planes, trains, ports, and urban centers safer, there's precious little left over—which is why a range of critics, from local firefighters to Republican members of Congress, have lambasted Bush for shortchanging the nation's true homeland security needs. Below, a sample of those needs, along with Bush's budget allocations, compared with the time it takes to burn through the same amount in Iraq.

Amount needed for basic security upgrades for subway and commuter trains in large cities: $6 BILLION
(Iraq spending equivalent: 20 days)

Bush budget allocation for train security: $100 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 8 hours)

Amount needed to equip all U.S. airports with machines that screen baggage for explosives: $3 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 10 days)

Bush budget allocation for baggage-screening machines: $400 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 32 hours)

Amount needed for security upgrades at 361 U.S. ports: $1.1 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 4 days)

Bush budget allocation for port security: $210 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 17 hours)

Amount needed to buy radiation portals for U.S. ports to detect dirty bombs in cargo: $290 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 23 hours)

Bush budget allocation for radiation portals: $43 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 3 hours)

Amount needed to help local firefighters preparefor terrorist attacks: $36.8 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 122 days)

Bush budget allocation for firefighter grants: $500 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 40 hours)

Amount needed to get local emergency medical crews ready for terrorist atttacks: $1.4 BILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 5 days)

Bush budget allocation for emergency medical training grants prior to eliminating program altogether: $50 MILLION
(Iraq equivalent: 4 hours)

Sources: (and links to the original data at the link above)

All Bush allocation figures taken from administration estimates of FY 2005 budget

[Up2Late]

16. Those would be easy to do in a 30 second T.V. spot too...,

...but we need to find a clever way to work those into the debate. They should have those ready to go for his NEXT lies about those subjects.

Maybe we should contact MoveOn .org and ask them to hold another :30 second spot contest?:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

19. That's the ticket!

I think, with the amount of talented people out there, something like that could go over really big! You should contact them and suggest it!!!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Up2Late]

23. I agree, I'm sure the moderates are very confused right now...

...and we can't present ourselves as just the opposite side of the argument, who will tell them anything to make them want to jump ship.

That's why I'm saying we need the Facts and reports from the past, that the News Media has ignored or actively discredited the author to make it appear wrong.

[mzmolly]

20. The same could be said of Clinton for "lying" about personal matters.

Clinton was impeached.

Glad they admit Bush lied NOW. That's a step in the right direction.

As for those in the media who say "so what, we all knew he was lying and it's okey dokey" I suggest we find quotes to the contrary from these fools during the March to war.

[Up2Late]

27. The part about Clinton I would say should be stage 2, but...

...part about discrediting the scumbag reporters, we should start that right away.

I'd start with Dana Milbank, and I just heard about a L.A. Times Reporter (Micheal Kinsley) and I think a few at the N.Y. Times who are doing this too. (Most likely, these guys are taking money from the WH or some lobbyist, which is another thing that might need rehashing)

[cally]

24. How a video of the rescue workers

with the reports underneath that the * admin lied about air polution after 9/11. Then clips from the rescue workers who are now disabled. Bush lied, we suffer.

[Up2Late]

28. YES, That one is VERY important!

Compare that to the Congress trying to take back the $400,000 Dollars from NYC (maybe it's more than that) instead of giving to a "Pile Workers" compensation fund, would be good too.

Another good issue is, the WH attempts to cut VA funding (which in some cases were stopped by congress) and the increased medical deductibles for the current War disabled.

[Tiggeroshii]

25. All set? Ready? CHARGE!!!!!!! n/t

[pat_k]

26. A few good summaries

Carl Levin provided a little summary during Kay's testimony

Before the war, the administration, in order to support its decision to go to war, made numerous vivid, unqualified statements about Iraq having in its possession weapons of mass destruction -- not programs, not program-related activities, not intentions, actual weapons is what the administration's statements focused on....

FAIR put together a good summary in July of 2003: Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg

There's some good source info at the Geo. Wash Univ National Securty Archive. For example, CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons

And finally, a book. Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War

[Up2Late]

29. Thanks for those, I think we all need to dust off the books and ...

...reports they read before the election and examine what info is actually in them. Most of the info we need is already in book form, but that info never got past the RW Media Filter.

[burrowowl]

31. Letters to

the Editors, Congress critters and e-mails to the MSM!
Flood them!

[Cocoa]

33. Iraq is the LAST thing they want to talk about

that much is for sure.