Third Columnist Named in Bush Propaganda Probe

I didn't find this anywhere but I could of missed it so if I am repating a post a mod can delete it...
Since I'm not too political, someone tell me why Bush isn't impeached for this! Clinton had a huge mess over some oral sex......something sure isn't right!

LadyV - I found this article:

Third columnist named in propaganda probe

The only thing that scares me if Bush were to be impeached is that Cheney would step up. He's the more dangerous of the two I'd say.

Besides, looks like he'll get away with this, like he does everything. Leads me to believe there are others who are really in power if you get my drift.





[edit on 29/1/05 by AlwaysLearning]

Haven't you realized Bush & Co. are above the law? Even if they were breaking the law and shoving it in peoples arse's, they'd never be in trouble. Want to know why? Thats a hard question. There is more to their ability than just the media, politicians, etcetera. Perhaps, former President Bush still has the CIA under his control from when he was Director of the CIA? And who does the CIA control, everyone! CIA controls everyone and everything of importance, domestic and foreign. Former President Bush still has loyalists in CIA, besides Porter Goss, there are many others that have corrupted the agency. The CIA is a tool for politicians, and the Bush's know it how to use it properly. Bush & Co. are just getting the vasoline out and will soon be rubbing it all over our bum bums.

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
The only thing that scares me if Bush were to be impeached is that Cheney would step up. He's the more dangerous of the two I'd say.

To be honnest, I'd rather have Cheney openly at the helm and having to work in the spotlight instead of how hes working now, pulling the strings from behind the screen, with Bush as the front man and not getting the heat on him for anything.

In the spotlight he won't be able to pull the stunts he'd be able to pull from behind the scenes.

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
The only thing that scares me if Bush were to be impeached is that Cheney would step up. He's the more dangerous of the two I'd say.

To be honnest, I'd rather have Cheney openly at the helm and having to work in the spotlight instead of how hes working now, pulling the strings from behind the screen, with Bush as the front man and not getting the heat on him for anything.

In the spotlight he won't be able to pull the stunts he'd be able to pull from behind the scenes.

He'll have a heart attack when he is openly at the "helm" and those journalists start asking him questions that he doesn't like. He is "old-school" and will get that angry constipated look on his face and tell the journalists to shove it.

Well, you have to break a law to impeached. Bush didn't break any law.

Clinton was guilty of lying under oath -- that's called purgury and it's against the law, that's why he was impeached.

[edit on 1/29/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by The Division Bell
He'll have a heart attack when he is openly at the "helm" and those journalists start asking him questions that he doesn't like. He is "old-school" and will get that angry constipated look on his face and tell the journalists to shove it.

My point exactly If he doesn't bite it by having a heartattack, at least he'll be limited in his manuvering.

Originally posted by LadyV
Since I'm not too political, someone tell me why Bush isn't impeached for this!

Because nothing illegal was done? You are talking about where they paid some media people to promote the no child left behind program right?

Clinton had a huge mess over some oral sex......something sure isn't right!

Clinton was impeached because of lying under oath in an investigation (about getting bj), not merely because he was an adulterer.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well, you have to break a law to impeached. Bush didn't break any law.

Clinton was guilty of lying under oath -- that's called purgury and it's against the law, that's why he was impeached.

[edit on 1/29/2005 by djohnsto77]

Bush would be guilty of lying under oath... if we could get him to swear to a damn oath! Remeber the 9/11 commission. He said he had 'Nothing to hide' but instead of speaking infront of the comission, under oath, like everyone else did. He held private talks (in a PUBLIC comission) and didnt swear to an oath. Something smells like bull# to me!

Originally posted by Ishes

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well, you have to break a law to impeached. Bush didn't break any law.

Clinton was guilty of lying under oath -- that's called purgury and it's against the law, that's why he was impeached.

[edit on 1/29/2005 by djohnsto77]

Bush would be guilty of lying under oath... if we could get him to swear to a damn oath! Remeber the 9/11 commission. He said he had 'Nothing to hide' but instead of speaking infront of the comission, under oath, like everyone else did. He held private talks (in a PUBLIC comission) and didnt swear to an oath. Something smells like bull# to me!

It's a long standing precedent that Congress can't make the president or any White House staff testify before them under oath...it's a separation of powers issue. Clinton perjured himself in a civil court case under an oath administered to him by the courts.

"Because nothing illegal was done? You are talking about where they paid some media people to promote the no child left behind program right? "

But is is illegal....

"Conservative columnist Mike McManus was paid $10,000 to promote marriage by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, making him the 3rd columnist paid by the Bush administration to promote administration policy.

The use of taxpayer money to fund propaganda breaks federal law."


www.shortnews.com...

How is the U.S. HHS spending money to promote marriage propaganda? Gov't agencies spend money on all those anti-drug and drinking and driving commercials...is that propaganda too?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
How is the U.S. HHS spending money to promote marriage propaganda? Gov't agencies spend money on all those anti-drug and drinking and driving commercials...is that propaganda too?

So, its okay to spend money on ads to support a political motive. (Taxpayer Money) And it is compareable to spending money on ads that tell teenagers to not drink and drive because they will wreck and possibly kill other people?
Wow, you are a die hard RNC supporter, huh? Bet you gave them a full $2,000 contribution.

"First it was revealed that the Education Department paid Armstrong Williams, a commentator and columnist, $240,000 to promote education policies of the Bush administration."

Money well spent. Was he promoting the No Child Left Behind bill?

Bush Policies 101 Below:
www.motherjones.com...

Mike McManus, whose column appears in about 50 newspapers, received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.

I don't see how marriage counciling is propaganda. It's as good for society as any anti-drunk-driving initiative.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well, you have to break a law to impeached. Bush didn't break any law.

Thats why Bush has stated on the record that his administration can not and will not be held accountable for any mistakes or breach of legal policy concerning the war in Iraq...............

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Mike McManus, whose column appears in about 50 newspapers, received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.

I don't see how marriage counciling is propaganda. It's as good for society as any anti-drunk-driving initiative.

I'm betting it was during election time. Okay. Lets have a bunch of journalists promote marriage while we endorse a bill called, "Gay Marriage Ban". What does that get the RNC? More voters that wouldn't have voted otherwise. It's simple mathematics.
People read about the promotion of marriage, then they read about the Gay Marriage Ban. Duh!

Am I the only one that see's the benefit in that? Somebody help me out here! Geez...I need brainiac conseling.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by The Division Bell]

This thread reminds me of a great quote by Winston Churchill:

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

As usual, Rush has got a good point.

www.rushlimbaugh.com...

from article:

Almost half of the EPA budget, for example, is grant money to a bunch of these wacko environmentalists out there telling all these lies about global warming and fossil fuels and the rest. Most of that goes to these left-wing groups. So as far as I'm concerned, anytime they issue some press release or white paper or their spokesmen appear on radio or TV and their group has received government money, then they've violated the law.

Money to journalist or money to wacko enviromentalists....whats the difference?

HAHAHA! Was he sober when he made that statement?