You notice how Republicans INSTANTLY dismiss anything negative about
Bush as "lies" no matter what the source.

This is because their spokesmen such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity,
.... never tell the truth, no it never dawns on them anyone else might
still have some integrity.

You see them even dismissing Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner,
the guy who broke Mai Lai, the guy who broke Abu Ghraib, who writes
for the New Yorker.

The dismiss without a second glance, without the tiniest bit of
curiosity or investigation. Their eyes are WIRED shut. Their ears are
plugged with beeswax. They must therefore KNOW Bush is a crook,
pervert and sadist. But for some strange reason they prefer to pretend
they don't notice.

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

From:	John S. Dyson
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:01:06 +0000 (UTC)

In article ,
"OhBoy" writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" wrote in message
> news:ct1hmv$2147$7@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <2sb7v097tbv8jfjhdtpjmjf3jtgh9vh8q2@4ax.com>,
>> Roedy Green writes:
>>> You notice how Republicans INSTANTLY dismiss anything negative about
>>> Bush as "lies" no matter what the source.
>>>
>>> This is because their spokesmen such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity,
>>> ... never tell the truth, no it never dawns on them anyone else might
>>> still have some integrity.
>>>
>>> You see them even dismissing Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner,
>>>
>> Actually, it is that most of the so-called dirt against Bush has
>> been found to be either untrue or unfounded.
>
> Can you help me out with some examples here?
>
Bush's fulfilled National Guard duty is almost always mischaracterized
by his detractors... Like alot of false/misleading claims, it is often
difficult to refute them... On the other hand, it would be good if Kerry
would have done a full document dump about his service, including the
potentially questioned contemporaneous discharge records... With
Bush, almost all possible documentation appears released, but with Clinton
his medical records don't seem to be as transparent, or with Kerry
his actual CONTEMPORANEOUS discharge records would be interesting.
Also, an explanation of one of Kerrys 'odd' medals would be interesting.

Very little has stuck on Bush, or tends to be relatively unimportant
to the typically 'libertarianesque' American. The Dems seem to worry
about things that aren't important to people (e.g. whether Bush or
Clinton were cocaine/pot users in the past), but seem not to care
about contemporary or IMPORTANT past misbehavior (ongoing abuse of
women or historical public lies that have impact against
OTHER people or war crime behavior) that is indeed important.

John

John

From:	Roedy Green
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:34:51 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:01:06 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote or quoted :

>Bush's fulfilled National Guard duty is almost always mischaracterized
>by his detractors...

Oh come on. Bush can't find a single piece of paper or a single
witness to back his story. There are plenty of witnesses who were
there who said he never showed up though they were looking for him
because he was a celebrity.

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

From:	jbeck
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:30:23 -0700

"John S. Dyson" wrote in message
news:ct1kt2$22cf$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article ,
> "OhBoy" writes:
>>
>> "John S. Dyson" wrote in message
>> news:ct1hmv$2147$7@news.iquest.net...
>>> In article <2sb7v097tbv8jfjhdtpjmjf3jtgh9vh8q2@4ax.com>,
>>> Roedy Green writes:
>>>> You notice how Republicans INSTANTLY dismiss anything negative about
>>>> Bush as "lies" no matter what the source.
>>>>
>>>> This is because their spokesmen such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity,
>>>> ... never tell the truth, no it never dawns on them anyone else might
>>>> still have some integrity.
>>>>
>>>> You see them even dismissing Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner,
>>>>
>>> Actually, it is that most of the so-called dirt against Bush has
>>> been found to be either untrue or unfounded.
>>
>> Can you help me out with some examples here?
>>
> Bush's fulfilled National Guard duty is almost always mischaracterized
> by his detractors... Like alot of false/misleading claims, it is often
> difficult to refute them... On the other hand, it would be good if Kerry
> would have done a full document dump about his service, including the
> potentially questioned contemporaneous discharge records... With
> Bush, almost all possible documentation appears released, but with Clinton
> his medical records don't seem to be as transparent, or with Kerry
> his actual CONTEMPORANEOUS discharge records would be interesting.
> Also, an explanation of one of Kerrys 'odd' medals would be interesting.
>
> Very little has stuck on Bush, or tends to be relatively unimportant
> to the typically 'libertarianesque' American. The Dems seem to worry
> about things that aren't important to people (e.g. whether Bush or
> Clinton were cocaine/pot users in the past), but seem not to care
> about contemporary or IMPORTANT past misbehavior (ongoing abuse of
> women or historical public lies that have impact against
> OTHER people or war crime behavior) that is indeed important.
>
> John
>
> John

Hi John:

Both your statments in this thread were well put. Thanks for the post.

From:	PRES CHENEY O VP ROVE
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:16:40 -0500

"Roedy Green" wrote in message
news:2sb7v097tbv8jfjhdtpjmjf3jtgh9vh8q2@4ax.com...
> You notice how Republicans INSTANTLY dismiss anything negative about
> Bush as "lies" no matter what the source.
>
> This is because their spokesmen such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity,
> ... never tell the truth, no it never dawns on them anyone else might
> still have some integrity.
>
> You see them even dismissing Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner,
> the guy who broke Mai Lai, the guy who broke Abu Ghraib, who writes
> for the New Yorker.
>
> The dismiss without a second glance, without the tiniest bit of
> curiosity or investigation. Their eyes are WIRED shut. Their ears are
> plugged with beeswax. They must therefore KNOW Bush is a crook,
> pervert and sadist. But for some strange reason they prefer to pretend
> they don't notice.
>
>
>
>
> Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
> --
> Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
> See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

Sheep, wool over eyes, head up ass. All reasons.

From:	Roedy Green
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:18:26 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:16:40 -0500, "PRES CHENEY O VP ROVE"
wrote or quoted :

>Sheep, wool over eyes, head up ass. All reasons.

But the evidence is SO overwhelming. Could you imagine continuing to
support Clinton if that much dirt had come out on him? No matter how
much you loved Clinton, you could not help but dissociate yourself
from him.

Remember how creepy it felt even the suggestion Vince Foster may not
have suicided?

Yet Bush has many such suspicious suicides in his past, and that is
just the beginning of the dirt. See http://mindprod.com/asbestos.html

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

From:	John S. Dyson
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:06:39 +0000 (UTC)

In article <2sb7v097tbv8jfjhdtpjmjf3jtgh9vh8q2@4ax.com>,
Roedy Green writes:
> You notice how Republicans INSTANTLY dismiss anything negative about
> Bush as "lies" no matter what the source.
>
> This is because their spokesmen such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity,
> ... never tell the truth, no it never dawns on them anyone else might
> still have some integrity.
>
> You see them even dismissing Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner,
>
Actually, it is that most of the so-called dirt against Bush has
been found to be either untrue or unfounded. This progressively
increases the required level of proof, simply because nothing
has made significant impact, and there have apparently been numerous
lies or misinformation against Bush. On the other hand, BJ Clinton's
misbehavior has often been proven or shown to be very plausible. Since
some of BJ's behavior has been proven or shown to be very plausible, then
BJ's character is expected to be very low and the standard of proof
isn't increased.

In some cases, perhaps previous cocaine use, people really don't
care, except the media does care for sensationalism. The American
people are actually more tolerant than common belief might imply.
On the other hand, 'crimes' where there are true victims (high
probability of abuse against women) or perjury or even BJ's wife,
the people are a little less tolerant.

I do believe that when it comes to OTHER people, and NOT IN MY
BACKYARD, the avg American tends to be somewhat libertarian-ish.
If someone is going to soil the oval office, during working hours,
with a young/disturbed woman, then people do take offense.

John

From:	OhBoy
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:08:50 GMT

"John S. Dyson" wrote in message
news:ct1hmv$2147$7@news.iquest.net...
> In article <2sb7v097tbv8jfjhdtpjmjf3jtgh9vh8q2@4ax.com>,
> Roedy Green writes:
>> You notice how Republicans INSTANTLY dismiss anything negative about
>> Bush as "lies" no matter what the source.
>>
>> This is because their spokesmen such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity,
>> ... never tell the truth, no it never dawns on them anyone else might
>> still have some integrity.
>>
>> You see them even dismissing Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner,
>>
> Actually, it is that most of the so-called dirt against Bush has
> been found to be either untrue or unfounded.

Can you help me out with some examples here?

OhBoy

From:	Roedy Green
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:20:45 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:06:39 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote or quoted :

>Actually, it is that most of the so-called dirt against Bush has
>been found to be either untrue or unfounded. This progressively
>increases the required level of proof, simply because nothing
>has made significant impact, and there have apparently been numerous
>lies or misinformation against Bush.

The big one was that he lied about the WMDs. As time progresses the
extent of his lie because more and more blatant.

The stories of torture get worse and worse. There are photos.

His lies about no foreknowledge of 9/11 are now well proven.

What accusation fell by the wayside?

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

From:	Roedy Green
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:33:30 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:06:39 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote or quoted :

>In some cases, perhaps previous cocaine use, people really don't
>care, except the media does care for sensationalism.

Bush admitted this himself in his own fractured syntax.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/08/23/bush.html

"I've made mistakes.. I haven't done cocaine during the past seven, no
twenty-five years."
~ George W. Bush
reported by Nancy Gibbs in Time Magazine 1999-08-30
In other words Bush confesses to taking cocaine either 8 or 26 years
previous in either 1991 or 1973. If he meant never, he would have said
so, not picked some irrelevant number.

Bush had a religious conversion at age 39, when he, as he describes
it, "came to the Lord" after a weekend of talks with the Rev. Billy
Graham. Within a year, he gave up drinking. I gather he believes all
sins prior to this born again experience are automatically forgotten
and forgiven. There is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic or a
recovered addict. There are only recovering alcoholics and recovering
addicts. Any denial of that fact keeps the addict stuck in a cycle of
substance abuse. Here is a video of him drunk at a wedding in 1992,
many years after he claimed to have stopped drinking entirely.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/bush/bush_tsg.mov

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

From:	Roedy Green
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:41 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:06:39 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote or quoted :

>In some cases, perhaps previous cocaine use, people really don't
>care, except the media does care for sensationalism.

Cocaine in important for several reasons:

1. the addiction is life long.

2. under stress the temptation to substance abuse is higher.

3. a president acting like Bush with megalomaniac fantasies, thinking
God is directing, him, paranoia about terrorists, and expressing a
desire to be dictator of the earth is encouraged by the drug which is
known to create such symptoms.

4. Bush has the big red button. If he goes nuts with the coke-head
idea is the antichrist, we are all in deep trouble.

At the very least Bush like a submarine captain should be subject to
random drug tests.

5. Bush is a DOUBLE addict. He is also an alcoholic. The odds of a
double addict staying on the wagon indefinitely are extremely remote.

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes

From:	Roedy Green
Subject:	Re: Why Republicans Never Believe Dirt On Bush
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:41:27 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:41 GMT, Roedy Green

wrote or quoted :

>5. Bush is a DOUBLE addict. He is also an alcoholic. The odds of a
>double addict staying on the wagon indefinitely are extremely remote.
>

6. Bush is showing signs of brain damage. Listen to him speak even ten
years ago. He could string a sentence together without turning it into
salad. The damage well could have been caused by past or ongoing drug
abuse. Bush is hanging out of the public eye a bit too much for
comfort. I don't trust him to stay sober.

Bush has kiddie anal rape videos made at Abu Ghraib.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes