Learning from Richard Nixon About How to Frame the GOP on Iraq

A message to swing voters and independent voters.

Despite the Karl Rove propaganda for 5 years since 9-11-2001, the Republiklan party appears the only party that has ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED weakness on National defense, National security and terrorism with their failure to defend America on 9-11-2001 and keep us safe. 9-11 attacks and the deaths of our people happened under a REPUBLICAN Administration.

If you vote Republican then you do it for the tax cuts, the religious persecution, and the F the poor Republican economic policies.

Pass these graphics around.





If you like this comment email me at info@dmocrats.org

The verity or falsity of a statement bears no logical relationship to the speaker or to the motives of the speaker. If the sun is directly overhead and the devil tells you it's noon; it's noon whether you like it or not.

If this administration is so commited to winning the war on terror, why, five years after 9/11, are they still ignoring the people responsible for the attacks on us, the Saudis? Next to the picture of Bush kissing Lieberman should be the picture of Bush holding the Saudi king's hand and kissing his cheek. Everytime they say we want to cut and run, we need to say that they were such chickensh*ts that they wouldn't fight the people who actually were responsible for attacking us in the first place. The Saudis were behind 9/11, they paid for Osama & Al Qeada to attack us. This Administration can't cut and run - they never showed up for the right fight in the first place. Why aren't we talking about this every day? Why do we let them control the dialogue? It was never about Iraq until we let them make it about Iraq. It wasn't Iraq who attacked us. George W. Bush is the biggest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain stuck his nose up Hitler's butt.

You've named the reason we should never use this quote: Dick lied. He made the statement for political gain (to take advantage of anti-war sentiment). Then, after his election, he "made the war worse."

It was probably written by Pat Buchanan, Nixon's speechwriter.

Nixon can never be a source of principled dissent to the war, because anyone embracing this lie, for any legitimate objection to the war, inherits his lack of credibility. Please, demote this article. If we dissent, it must be in our own words.

A "Progressive" failure of nerve, or imagination? to let a demonstrably- 'weapons-grade'-"request" remain silent.........RE: WARFOLIO BOUNDARIES OF SELF-ENTITLEMENT FOR PUBLIC SERVU$: TO THIS PNAC-GALLERIED, OVER-INDULGED, BENEFIT-OF-THE-DOUBT JUNTA OF "AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLERS" .........(PRIVATE SECTOROIDS, DEATHSTAR YE$MEN, FREE-RANGE CHICKENHAWKS, O MY! ETC) who now insinuate a secretly "acceptable" redefinition of PUBLIC SERVU$ ..........GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT? FORTUNE$ OF WAR / TAXFREE ESTATE! Re: portfolio skeletons & skull-duggered boner$............... "Anybody want some wood?"...... ~Bush [noticeably 'nervous'] in debate with Kerry- ..............IF THIS ("LOADED TROJAN HORSE") "RECU$AL" QUESTION WERE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, YOU THINK IT WOULD HAVE GONE SO LONG 'UNASKED'? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN "IN EACH & EVERY FACE" OF A COMPARABLY 'VULNERABLE' [CORPORATE BOARDROOMED] DEMOCRATIC WAR CABINET--AND ANY 'HESITATION' IN GETTING TO THE ONLY POLITICALLY-POSSIBLE ANSWER--"YES"--WOULD BE ATTACK-AD VOICEOVER ON BLIND, WHEELCHAIRED, AND FLAG-BOXED HEROES 'COMING HOME'........................ AN 'OATH' OF MARTIAL OFFICE (Anticipating their overwrought 'shock & awe' that we should even suggest the possibility of personal profit @ play in any way, etc..."Mr. President, would you also then decline to take the traditional 'oath of office' because the Public should simply "trust" you?") ...........TO STRIKE OR NOT TO STRIKE A POTENTIALLY NATIONAL 'MORAL FUNNYBONE'.......... In Requesting of Public Servants Exercising Fatal Authority In Our Name A Formal "Declaration of Disownership"--A For-the-Record Concession that No Entitlement Exists to Present or Future Personal Profit 'Demonstrably Connected' to Any War (or Military Action) Authorized, Promoted, Advanced or Otherwise "Engaged on Their Watch": .........We the People Hold Ourselves Deserving of "An Explanation" Should the Answer to This "Recu$al-for-Life" Question be "No"........... If the Answer is "Yes", Then Be It Understood: Martial Planner ["Product"-Launcher] Agrees to Surrender-on-Demand Said Profit--(Deliberate or Unintentional, Exposed or "Discovered") to Veteran Benefit Groups, College Funds For Children of the Fallen, Etc... .....http://www.kyndmusic.com/2006/07/01/artist-general-warning-recusal-question-bad-for-bush/ .........................................FOR THE FOURTH ESTATE AND THE POWER THAT A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY WOULD HAVE IT CHECK:......... A QUESTION OF COURAGE IN A MEASURE OF CHARACTER FOR THE ASKING: Of Martial Planner$... If not "directly" present it "sideways" ..............SCENE FROM DEMOCRACY-IN-ACTION CALLING-THE-BLUFF OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN A TIME OF WAR: ..............."Mr. Vice President-- (and each member one by one of the Bush War Cabinet) ..........."What do you think of the concept of this-- that this and all future War-Cabinets, should publically "Recu$e" themselves, should agree for life to never accept any personal profit "traceable" to any war or military action launched or promoted on their watch... while of course we all know that as much is nowhere in your own motivation, or Mr. Rumsfeld's, or Mr. Bremer's, or Mr. Wolfowitz's, etc, we don't know what caliber of public servants the future will bring--might it not be better to "start" with a War Cabinet so obviously above any semblence of "profiteering"? to establish the precedent of at least the prospect of personal $acrifice?............... Afterall, given the dramatic devotion of so many veterans, would this really be "too much to ask" of those who sent them into War?............ ..........What are your thoughts on this, Sir? Would you see this as a personal infringement on your rights as a devoted Public Servant in a free-market economy?".............. ...WE SHOULD ASK THIS QUESTION AS AN ACT IF NOTHING ELSE, OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCE ARTISTRY, OF MISCHIEF & STONE-THROW, OF VIS$IONTHING SABOTAGE. WE SHOULD LIGHT THIS BAG O'$HIT ON THEIR PORCH- WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME 'FUN' WITH IT--IT'S A SQUIRM-FACTOR 10, PEOPLE. THINK ABOUT IT: HOW THOROUGHLY THEY'D HAVE HAD THEIR WAY WITH IT BY NOW, IF WE WERE AS 'AWKWARDY' "EXPOSED" BY IT AS THEY ARE. »

A brilliant editorial, even by BuzzFlash standards. But it tiptoes around the question of agency: who is controlling these events?

If these "plots" can be discovered and prevented at will, then they had to have been set up well in advance. The props and the actors were all carefully put in place, so they could be "exposed" when politically convenient. That means we're not talking about a bunch of amateurs. It's a professionally orchestrated drama that goes on stage whenever geopolitical events require a distraction, or a nudge towards a friendlier topic. There's probably a whole retinue of such "plots" waiting to be exposed.

But let's take the matter one step further. What if, tragically, the attacks had succeeded and an aircraft had been destroyed. Would not this terrible event also have required precise insider knowledge, careful planning, and expert execution?

Now here's the inconsistency. When one of these "plots" is interrupted and prevented, people are willing to assume it is the work of insiders, professionals who have the necessary information, technology, and ability to conceal their actions. But when a "plot" succeeds, as on 911, then people insist it must be a bunch of amateurs who just, beginner's luck, somehow pulled it off.

But isn't the opposite case the far greater probability? Wouldn't the amateurs likely be the ones to get caught? And the pro's the ones to get away with it?

If you go to the source of 10,000 lies you usually won't find a truth, but another lie. If you haven't yet had a chance, see the documentaries on David Ray Griffin or physicist Steven Jones about the sad truth of 911. It's way too late for the "unanswered questions" phase. 911 was an inside job. It was carried out by US intelligence forces. Its purpose was to justify an illegal invasion to seize the resources of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, and to stampede a shocked public into accepting the marshal law of the misnamed Patriot Act. And it worked. Sheltered by the corporate controlled media monopoly, the criminals responsible for this atrocity have gotten away scot-free.

That means, they'll do it again. Here's a melancholy prediction. The republicans are in too deep. They can't afford to lose and have their treason investigated and exposed. You can already bank on a degree of vote fraud that will make Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 look like kiddy's day. But if they figure that even their massive fraud still won't swing the election, they'll orchestrate another terrorist attack. It will be on American soil, bigger than 911, and probably involve either a dirty bomb or a portable nuclear device. It will be carried out by the same criminals. And once again, the media monopoly will chant their chorus about the guilt of foreign terrorists (almost certainly Iranian).

But if a pre-election terrorist attack does happen (and I hope and pray it does not), then ask yourself who is really responsible? Here's the answer: all those earnest and judicious 911 conspiracy-debunker folks who just simply couldn't believe that their own government would turn on them in such a cold and cynical fashion.

The Richard Nixon quote that you've given us here should definitely be the new banner for the Democratic Party.

Saw on Hardball last night Peter King spreading "gloom, doom and rumors of boom" doing his Republican bit to raise the fearmongering to even higher levels. A stark contrast to John Edwards' (who followed King) calm assurance and confidence. If there is one who is ment by "..the time has come for the American people to turn to a new leadership not tied to the mistakes an policies of the past." ...that new leadership is John Edwards.

This new torror plot gets wierder by the hour. First the police were investigating it since dec. now they've been investigating it for a year (aug.-aug. does not = dec.) then 24 people were arrested now 21, there was to be 12 planes targeted now 10, the explosive device in question is peroxide paste (commonly know as toothpaste) and a soda sparked by a camera flash. So the logical conclussion if you believe any of this rubbish is that anyone who buys toothpaste and a soda who happens to own a digital camera with a flash (yes even disposable ones) is out to blow up your family and loved ones. Give me a fucking break, how stupid do these people think we are; Stupid sheep lemmings probably are falling for it. To those people I say "get frickin real."

I knew that something like this would pop up with the November elections so near and the Republicans not looking to well. I'm just so tired of this fear controlled messages that keep comming out when needed. I'm sorry to say I don't believe much of anything that comes out between England and our country. I think that is a sad state but it's not the first time so I don't concider myself a whole nut, it happened in VetNam remember all the body counts and lies that came out of that conflict. Katie Edwards