Why Does the Christian Right Embrace a Lying President ?
 

What can it be, besides hypocrisy and a lust for "earthly" power and wealth that would compell supposed "spiritual" leaders of conservative christians in the U.S., to continue to predictably and reflexively support, rather than to question or condemn, the repeated and obvious lies that emerge from the lips of President Bush, especially during major national crises?
So...what we have is the record of President Bush making public declarations that are obvious falsehoods, after two major disasters, with the intent of deflecting efforts to assign blame or responsibility to him or to his administration.........
As i've posted on this forum before, on Sept. 16, 2001, days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared that no one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. Big events bigger lies.

Why is there no outrage or condemnation of Bush expressed by his religious "base"?

Short answer: because he's their lying president.

I'd imagine it's because the christian right is itself full of people incapable of intellectual honesty. They see bush as a means to achieve their goals in suppressing the freedom of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their quaint, parareligious, contradictive belief system. It's kind've like how many liberals embraced kerry, even though he was a pro-war, pro-business douchebag.

I suspect you could replace 'christian right' with 'liberal' in every single sentence in this thread and answer your own question.

Your answer will probably look a lot like raveneyes post.

:thumbsup:

/appreciates that filtherton quote immensely.

-bear

I'm so tired of Bush being referred to as a Christian it's not even funny. Clearly his actions do not represent what the book teaches.

Perhaps, but his actions are parallel to the actions of some of the most powerful and public representatives of christianity. I don't think he's that christian either, but then again, i don't think the majority of the christian right has any clue as to what jesus was about.

Just listened to his speech....

Is it possible to be more out of touch with reality? I don't even know how to describe how disgusted I am.

I do not think that enough can ever be documented, noted, distributed, and protested, concerning the pattern of lies that eminate from the lips of our criminal president, especially when large numbers of us are in crisis, agravated by the incompetence and deceit of these same leaders, passing themselves off as the champions of the "christian right", whoi fund them, vote for them, appologize for them, and cheer them on !

We have all been here before...."the pattern of lies" seems right out of the movie, "Ground Hog Day". Thank heavens for Fox "news"....Bush's apologists and enablers would have new heaps of reality to twist and to deny, if not for the "look at the looters" coverage that they watch, over and over.

Bush said the following to the press (it is still available on the white house website), just 5 days after 9/11.............
Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:
Wake the Fuck up, America, moveon.org and Michael Moore are not the enemy. You criminal, lying POTUS, Geroge W Bush is a much more plausible suspect for that "honor". Ted Kennedy killed one woman, 36 summers ago.
...and you think that I'm the one who is too "shrill", here ?????

Host, I give your posts about as much thought as the "bLuD fOr O!L!1!1!" trolls on the DU and Moveon.org.

Bodyhammer86; the irony is lost on you, I guess. My "posts" consist primarily of undisputed reports from the MSM and other reliable and authorative sources. Your comments are an indication of the state of denial that you and like minded folks must dwell in, to enable this recent degradation of America, and the assault on common sense that makes it all possible.

I'm not the problem, but the information that I post for the benefit of distracted but less ideological people to mull over, if they choose to.....is a part of a possible solution.

Your comments speak for themselves. Attack and attempt to discredit me, by innuendo, first....debate and rebut my arguments and citations with reliable and convincing ones of your own......never !

You give the benefit of the doubt to and praise the Downing Street Memos as damning evidence of Bush lying about the war, which is more than enough to toss your credibility out the window. Here's my favorite part of the article: You know, I’d have a lot more “outrage” about the Downing Street Memo if it were somehow more credible. The reporter who broke the story in the British papers claims to have made a copy on an old typewriter of the transcripts from a clerk who allegedly attended the meeting, and then burned his original copy.

It all sounds so “Rathergatesque” to me that I can’t put any faith into the document. Imagine digging up an old typewriter to transcribe notes in this day and age, and then pre-aging them by photocopying them several times before presenting “the smoking gun” to the public. How convenient(and dramatic) versus credible does the claim of “burning the originals to protect the source” sound? I’d have to go with “convenient”.

I say until the source is identified, and some actual transcripts ( not fifteenth generation transcribed and photocopied notes)are presented, I’ll leave the barking about the DMS’s to the moonbats.

I could have sworn this thread was about the christian right embracing Bush regardless of the dishonesty. If indeed the dishonesty is in question then perhaps we can address this aspect......but please, lets not attack each other as it serves no real purpose.

Remember...we have a back button

Host, you have a great talent for pointing out mistakes made by this administration (In HINDSIGHT).

If you will post, right now, what and where the next terrorist attack will be, and how much we should spend to prevent it, I will acknowledge your wisdom. You don't have to give an exact date, but I think it's reasonable to require that you be within a month of it.

Same goes for our next natural disaster.

Until you can do that, I'm not terribly impressed with all of the crap you throw against the wall as an armchair quarterback.

The quoted passages from the first article do not match the link.

You also left part of the second article out:

This might sway too far out of the topic, and maybe worthy of a thread of its own- let's assume the information is credible; what do you think a realistic solution is?

I agree hindsight is 20/20, constantly saying bush is stupid, and irresponsible doesn't help anything

Hey,

Even as a bush critic, I agree with you. I'm a bit perplexed with the liberals focus their attention on unverified sources in order to back up their claims as 'bush being a liar.' However, the evidence that our President is reactive and does not focus attention on certain things is quite numerous, verified by the AP, Mainstream media, and other prominent sources; as host has stated in original post.

Although I do not agree with this position, some of his supporters believe that he's not culpable for his lies, as he was relying upon sources and information that eventually became incorrect, and as well as the reason that he was ignorant. Also, JFK and many other members of Congress were 'duped' on this same incorrect information [pertaining to the military actions against Hussein's regime]. A key difference that separates the left and the right is that, as President, GWB should be responsible for verification of the intelligence and information that he receives.

The outraged moderate,
keyshawn

I can't argue much about this topic due to my...lacking political knowledge, but I do find it funny that a few members were berating the President for being a liar and then praising Michael Moore. There is no getting around it: Michael Moore is a liar. A public liar. His movies are great forms of persuasion and are very thoughtful, but within these movies are <I>lies</I>, plain and simple. Being on the side of someone who exaggerates to the extremes and even lies in his movie productions is no better than blindly following a "lying" President.

Keyshawn brings up a good point as well -- the President may be presenting false information to the public, but I highly doubt that he is told to lie or is lying on his own behalf. It's most likely information that is transferred to him through close outlets. I do agree that this is a faulty procedure and that such information should be closely inspected, but calling the President a "liar" due to false information being given to him is ignorant. That's the same act as calling the initial 9/11 death toll providers as liars...it's not a lie, it's just a serious lack of information verification.

-Lasereth

Check my signature :D

That is an important point. He doesn't just pull what he says out of his ass, he actually gets it from other people who have that job, and probably had it under Clinton, H.W. Bush, and further.

You can say what you wish about the information provided, but calling it lies is a lie in itself.

Observing the difference between fact and fiction is not exactly their strong suit.

My response here also speaks to comments posted by <b>aswo</b>, <b>djestudo</b>, and <b>Marvelous Marv</b>.....

My three past posts on this thread have been almost exclusively confined to my thoroughly (and so far, unchallenged, as to the citations I've offered to back my two examples of outrageous Bush lies) documented background information related to the following quotes of Bush's comments recorded by the media shortly after two unprecedented disasters.......
Bush, speaking to reporters on Sept. 16, 2001
I've posted multiple MSM news reports and commentary to back my point that it is not reasonable to defend either of Bush's "post disaster" attempts to deflect blame or responsibility via very similar, untrue statements.

Please attempt to refute the documentation that I've posted to back my contention that, in the two most important incidents that have occured during Bush's presidency, he has chosen to make very similar statements shortly after each event that are not just misleading, but intentionally and obviously false. This pattern now is so obvious, that Bush's base, the Christian Right, are perceived by a growing number of Americans, to be supporting an obvious liar.
Instead of challenging my documentation, you are reduced to calling me "ignorant", full of "hate", and you make the claim that posting the comment that "Michael Moore is not the enemy", is akin to supporting a POTUS who has lied about his own knowledge concerning the two greatest crises that he has faced as our president.

Can we get back on track? How is either of the Bush quotes, in the face of the other info I've posted about 9/11 plane hijackings and about what was known before the New Orlean levees failed, not an obvious and intentional lie to the American people. during a time of a great crisis ? Facts have to matter. My reaction to what Bush has said is one of outrage, based on the facts.

To ignore the facts and defend Bush despite two of his greatest lies, while making no effort to dispute the evidence that makes the case for him being
a liar who openly betrays the trust placed in him by the American people in a time of crisis, not once, but twice, should be recorded for all to see.

I can't offer any political knowledge here because it's simply not one of my strong points or hobbies. One of my hobbies <I>is</I> movies, however, hence my Michael Moore comment. Many Republicans may blindly follow Bush even though he's been fed false information and is taking it as true, but Democrats aren't out of the water...many of them blindly follow Michael Moore's movies that bash the POTUS without even checking to see if HIS information is true. It's not. He's a liar, just as many say Bush is a liar. His movies are not made to give insight to the American public on the POTUS, but rather turn them against him <B>at all costs</B>, even if it means lying and using persuasion/exaggerating techniques to do it.

-Lasereth

Host - everynight I go to bed happy knowing that you only get 1 vote every 2 years.

Lasereth, I don't understand why you keep bringing Michale Moore up except as a tactic to completely avoid the thread's point. No liberal or democrat has brought him up here, nothing he has produced is even remotely relevant to what Host posted about, and about the only way you can tie it in is that host's allegations that the president lied about no one conceiving of this sort of thing happening before it did mirrors his earlier assertions that no one had an inkling that something like the WTC disaster could ever occur. And Michael Moore made a movie about how he felt about the president's presentation of the motives behind the war.

That's one of the most bizarre linkage I have yet to see.
Host didn't even call into question anything related to the war...first of all.

He's only alleging that the president keeps telling the public that these disasters could never have been imagined...and then evidence surfaces that, yes, many people did in fact imagine and write about precisely this occuring. So unless President Bush wasn't aware of any of these predictions he flat out lied to the public.

Then host makes the claim that unless the president really didn't have knowledge that his cabinet and intelligence community were aware that OBL was determined to attack the US and that he might even use planes to do it, he lied that no one in the US was remotely aware of that possibility.

Doesn't it seem more logical to argue that the president wasn't aware of that evidence than to reply that Michael Moore makes shit up!?

These kinds of responses are the basis for much frustration from a lot of people, much less liberals.
"Hey, what the hell, the civil engineers have been warning for years that the levees were gonna break. How could President Bush just state on national television that no one thought a disaster like this could occur so don't go blaming anyone just yet?"
"Huh, well, Jane Fonda was a traitor and posed with the enemy in Vietnam."

WTF? It's like the equivalent of trying to talk to a two year old in the sandbox when he's plugging his ears and shouting, "nanananana!"

That's your parting thought as you drift off to sleep?
What a ridiculous statement. On its face your retort is purely flippant and rude to host.

You want respect from people on this forum? You ought to quit attacking host..I haven't once seem him personally attack you.

Bush never anticipated september 11th, or the levee's breaking in new orleans. He might not of made the right decisions following the disaster, but that is quite different than intentionally lieing

You make a good point.
If he were interested in personal respnsibility and honesty, wouldn't it be better to state that "I didn't anticipate these events" rather than "No one anticipated them?"

The facts and truth are that people did anticipate them...and published their concerns. Their concerns have been in the public domain for years now.

I just noticed this.......and wonder at the use of it

Let us hope such insults do not become .....prevelant

host mentioned Michael Moore in one of his posts. I can't stand it when people don't know the truth about Moore, so any time he is mentioned I sort of go off on a tangent about him. It was mentioned that Moore is not the enemy. Well, he's a liar, so I guess Bush isn't the enemy either. One might argue that Moore has no effect on citizens and that Bush is the POTUS...but this entire thread is based on lying. I know MM isn't the point of this thread, and I'm not meaning to argue that Bush isn't a liar. What I will argue to the death is using Michael Moore in any form of positive way concerning politics.

-Lasereth

To be honest, I've never seen a conclusive example of either George W. Bush or Michael Moore lying. I've seen plenty of examples of them getting something wrong. But that doesn't prove that they lied.

I've posted several concrete, no-doubt-about-it, conclusive examples of MM lying.

One of the very top of my head is what MM says the plaque under the Diamond Lil says and what it really says. (See BFC).

I've read the thing myself and it doesn't say what he says it says. MM lied about it to make a point in his "documentary".

edit: can't take it back, but I can remove it. Sorry to get off track.

I "mentioned" Moore because this post, on another thread, is burned into my mind, and I wanted to pre-empt the use of the "Moore"/moveon.org "card" that I expected would be "played" as a substitute for a substantative rebuttal.
You may use the "Moore" asssociation among yourselves, in as a means to promote solidarity for your reflexive support of the POTUS, but the rest of us don't get it, when you trot it out.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...81&postcount=2
Bush's reputation did not rise in stature when Sheehan was cut down by associating her with Moore/moveon.org, and Bush will continue to enjoy a reputation by 50 percent and still growing numbers of Americans as a liar as a substitute for leadership in crisis. He had to be aware of the polled opinions of his credibility before his "levee lie", and he still did it. Michael Moore is a documentary film maker who is excellent at self-promotion, and moveon.org is the web address of a PAC that has an agenda that you may not necessarily agree with. Bush has his own dismal record and reputation now, with poll numbers that are becoming more appropriate for the gravity of the circumstances that he has steered himself and the country into.

Moore and moveon.org are irrelevant in a defense of Bush's performance and veracity.

Lebell, it is ironic that the only example that you posted to buttress your opinion of my level of credibility related to the content of my posts on these threads is a citation of a mistake that I made that I apologized for, even as I took the high road regarding the manner in which my mistake was brought to my attentiion.......

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=81

and Lebell, this is what you posted about me:
It doesn't seem fair because you announce in advance that you won't make the time or the effort to back up what you are accusing me of, or afford me your attention when I attempt to defend myself with regard to examples of my insufficiencies, which you say you won't make the effort to post.

The Christian right DID NOT support Clinton.

And it would completely go against every fiber of being to support the lies and hypocrasy being spread by the liberal left. Thats why. They all lie. Deal with it.

Thanks, Max. You should be a moderator. :icare:

....because most normal people don't have the time, host. The onus is on you to sift through your "references" to make sure they aren't shit, especially in light of the amount of them. This was a discussion board before you showed up. It hurts my wrists to even scroll through one of your posts. I'm frankly amazed you haven't been banned for spamming, because essentially - and at least according to one mod, that's what your presence amounts to.

Host's sources, as with any source, should be questioned. Unfortunately with the glut of information that we have at our fingertips in this age, one has to take that much more time and effort in seeking out what truth, if any, lies in these articles. Host, would I be mistaken to think that you would be the first to admit this?

I don't see why the onus is on Host to make sure his sources are ironclad anymore than it is on the rest of us. Of course it takes a long time to discover what's reliable and what is not, if that is even possible. If you want to throw in some valid contribution to these discussions, you'll just have to take the time to do some research and build a strong opinion.

matthew330 - In the time it took you to criticize Host you could have gone on to the Guardian U.K. website and searched for a relevant article to either contribute to the discussion or formed an opinion based on it.

4 articles to support what, 3 senteces of his own. I've contributed all this thread deserves. As Lebell said I " have seen too many examples of his taking questionable sources and posting them as "fact" for me to spend much time with them anymore." I glance through this for peoples thoughts, not to polish up what i've missed in my last visit to the democratic undergrounds latest update to their database.

The only conceivable reason this thread is still running is because moderators (and they've said this before) choose to allow members to show their true colors...

...kudos to the way a few members and a fucking moderator* have denigrated a valuable member of this community. These are the kinds of threads I show potential new members when they ask me what this place is like so they can enter with eyes wide open.





*EDIT: lebell, you posted a couple responses but deleted them immediately afterwards, so I'll merely respond to your PM to me:
Go ahead and point it out if it makes you feel vindicated in some way about the way you posted toward host. Your usual victimstance notwithstanding, I'm going to trust that most people read my statement in context as an expression of incredulity at your behavior toward a member, not a personal attack (which wouldn't make much sense since my posts have been admonishments against personal attacks on host).

2nd edit:
Here's the PM I received after posting the above edit:
Exactly. I choose not to respond via PM to these kinds of statements--there really isn't anything to say to such communication. I post your statements out here because I think the members have a right to see how you play cool mod out here but attempt to agitate some of us behind the scenes. Furthermore, since you've threatened to put this in hands of others behind the scenes, I think the community should have access to the full picture. I also have a right to allow the community access to what I receive in my personal communication box. In you feel attacked by me posting what you put here, perhaps you shouldn't be sending it to me.

I haven't responded to you via PM, I haven't altered what I've said about you, and I haven't altered what you've stated about me. So if moderators are going to come down on me hard for what I've done, at least the community has access to the full story before I'm wiped from the board.

In any forum I've visited, this kind of dishonesty (leaving out highly pertinent information because it contradicts your opinion) would end any trace of credibility the poster had possessed.

(Marv, feel free to post more specific criticism, and I will explain myself if it is appropriate to do so, or I will admit that I posted distortions and apologize.)

I put the time and effort into responding to Lebell's post of examples of my shortcomings and tendencies to mislead......as smooth points out, Lebell has since deleted his post. I copied the part of his post that did not include his quote of the entire article found here.....
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
Lebell, in your first example, it may not have been clear to you that I ONLY included the following, from the link that I posted, to begin this thread.....
The rest of that first quote box was content as described....."excerpts are from an article by Sheila Grissett which appeared in the June 8th, 2004 edition of the Times-Picayune.)"

I was unable to come up with a link to the June 8th, 2004 article, and there was no reason that I could justify to post the excerpt of the linked article that you claim I excluded because it did not bolster my argument.

I can only remind you that this thread was not intended to be a debate on the response of authorities to the plight of surviving victims. It is a thread that highlights the narrower issue of our presiident Bush making similar statements, shortly after huge disasters, that strike me as boldface lies. I linked an Aug. 31 articel tiitle that directly contradicted what Bush stated, and all of my posted references are intended to examine what it is reasonable to expect that Bush knew, and when he knew it.....eiither on Sept. 16, 2001, related to 9/11, or last week, related to the risk of N.O. levee failures.

It may not seem like I think about it, but I strive to keep my posts as brief as possible, without weakening my arguments, by being too brief. I assume when I post, that my entire audiience is hostile to what I am tellng them, and a few might be willing to examine what I post and then use what I offer as a jumping off point to their own, independent inquiries.

Respondiing to your second example, I began the thread that you linked, with the following.........
I iincluded the following "excerpts" in the same, thread starting post, to strengthen the crux of what I iintended the thread to be about.....one more sign that Bush intended to contrive a case for invading Iraq.....regardless of the fact that Saddam had not rebuilt his military capability, or his WMD programs, nor did he possess the WMD stockpiles that Bush claimed to be the provocation and justification for war. I also intended to show that Bush's claim that war was a 'last resort", to be chosen only after diplomatic efforts had failed to disarm Saddam, was a falsehood, or at least a cynical charade.

Do you really want to maintain, that in the face of all of the following that I included, I misled other members into thinking that there were no grounds for the U.S. to invade Iraq, based on his existing WMD programs, stockpiles, and prior, recent buildup in military capabilities, when there actually were grounds.

I think that you have it exactly backwards, Lebell. You seem to want to hold me to a "standard" that would brand me as you earlier described me, if I do not include entire quotes, instead of excerpts that address core, and essentially relevant points, while you exhibit no such tendency to demand a similarly strict standard of your president or his government.

This is all the more curious a stance when one considers that the worst harm that I might do, by what I include or leave out, is possibly mislead some readers, and diminish my own credibility, while the POTUS and his team can get vast numbers of people killed and maimed, as they are demonstrating.....