Help me Debunk Freeper Myths

[HFishbine]

Okay, this guy claims to be a democrat. I used freeper in the subject because his thoughts are similar. This guy sounds like one who needs a little nudge toward the light. And since he maintains a local blog of some popularity, I'd like to help set him straight.

How about some links that may educate on this subjects about which he writes:

"I am upset about all of the Bush-bashing, but not for the same reason as Republicans. I'm upset because so much of it is stupid. I hereby dub the spouters of moronic anti-Bush rants: Bashholes.There are two threads of Bush-bashing that are the dumbest:

The Fat Cat Conspiracy. This line of stupidity holds that W. (and his father before him) pick fights in the mideast "for oil," whatever that means. It has something to do with "his rich Texas oil friends," in general and Halliburton in particular. The logic behind this belief is completely unclear, but that doesn't stop people from being passionate about their idiocy.

The Lying Hawk. This line of rant holds that Bush knew the falsity of the intelligence he was receiving and flat-out lied because he just wanted so badly to roll out his military toys.

Links?

[sandnsea]

1. Read our Security Policy

Gee, that pretty well lays out the oil end of it. Oil is a US security interest. White House web site. And, read the proposed Energy bill. Drill, drill, drill. Why else would Bush avoid renewable energies if not to make money for his oil buddies, and himself. Senate web site. Oh, and implementing policy for the benefit of business is also why Bush passed those tax cuts. Republicans DO believe in government interference when it benefits big business.

And with George, I kind of take Kerry's position. I can't really know if Bush intentionally misled us because I don't know if he actually read the reports he was given. But the State Dept. speech given by Powell is the best resource if one cared to fact check each claim in it. By that time, the inspectors had gotten back into Iraq and much of what was in that report was already being debunked. State Dept web site.

[Bozola]

2. snort!

flat-out lied because he just wanted so badly to roll out his military toys.

Just?

Considering the great extent that the military has been "privatized" (anyone remember a company called Carlyle?) "rolling out his military toys" is the biggest business there is. $400 Billion a YEAR, and in Iraq alone, over $30 Billion per month!

His oil friends are recieving just pennies compared to what his Daddy and Jimbo Baker da Three are raking in.

[xchrom]

3. why bother?

said blogger isn't naive -- the blogger is lying.

[HFishbine]

4. Even more of a reason, then.

Lies are easier to refute.

[JHB]

5. Well, there's PNAC...

...many of whose members and associates form the core of Bush's Cabinet and top advisors (who strongly advocated invading Iraq long prior to 9/11), his long-standing bait-&-switch tactics, the calculated rhetorical mixing of Saddam, Nukes, al-Queda, and 9/11 (you can tell it's calculated because they never crossed the line and outright blamed Saddam for 9/11, they just implied it -- consistently, for months), the current back-peddling over these implied connections, etc.

[meegbear]

6. 2 excellent sources

Urban Legends page: www.snopes2.com

Debunk junk e-mail: www.breakthechain.org