« most sacreligous commercial ever | Main | I predict »

lies, damned lies and fakeries

First, it was the presidency itself. Bush didn't really win the election. His leadership of the U.S. is fake.

Then it was 9/11. Those terrorists didn't really hijack planes and kill thousands of people. It was all faked and staged. Bush was behind it all.

Thanksgiving? The turkey was fake. In fact, the whole setup was shot in Hangar 18. Bush never even made it to Iraq.

And now, a British newspaper is claiming that "unnamed sources" swear that Saddam was found and drugged by Kurd forces and left for the U.S. soldiers to lay claim to.

So, you see - everything Bush does or has a hand in is obviously fake. In fact, he has a Department of Lies which employs a Photoshop expert, a special effects staff and John Lovitz.

Also, all these terror alerts? Faked. They're just lies created in conjuction with suppliers of gas masks, duct tape and plastic wrap. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find some website that details how much Home Depot has donated to the Bush campaign.

Soon the truth will be discovered and everyone will realize that George W. Bush does not even exist. He is nothing more than a robot, quite like Robocop, put together by Ralph Nader and Ross Perot to discredit the Republicans. He's the Optimus Prime of presidents. Take him apart and he makes a hand can opener/apple corer/pencil sharpener.

Remember, everything is fake. Nothing is real. In fact, Washington D.C. is nothing more than a cardboard city, populated by actors and droids.

This is not the president you are looking for. Nothing to see here.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference lies, damned lies and fakeries:

So, you see - everything Bush does or has a hand in is obviously fake. In fact, he has a Department of Lies which employs a Photoshop expert, a special effects staff and John Lovitz.That's the ticket!... [Read More]

» "Turkeygate"? You're serious? from Inoperable Terran
Michele is lookin' for the real thing, baby.... [Read More]

» Faux Shizzle from dcthornton.com
The "secrets" of the VWRC, exposed, for anyone gullible enough (like the editors of the Sunday Express, for example) to... [Read More]

» I am not a droid, I am a human being from Ravenwood's Universe
"Washington D.C. is nothing more than a cardboard city, populated by actors and droids." -- Michele of A Small Victory.... [Read More]


Damn straight, Michele. Luckily, most of us can distinguish between nutcase theories and reality. Sadly, though, #1 still remains true.

Joseph's correct and if you can fake that the rest is possible.

Its just peoples way of explaning how messed up the situation is

Don't forget, the moon landing was faked too.

In fact, EVERYTHING is faked. Nothing is real.

The world is the rug pulled over our eyes to blind us from the truth.

I think this is poor choice of parallelism. Obviously the 9/11 accusation is insane. The thanksgiving thing defines the word "trivial" and is stupid besides; it's not worth discussing, by anyone. The idea that Hussein was captured by Kurds, drugged, and held until a payment was arranged, isn't impossible, but I don't buy it largely because it seems to me that several hundred Americans would likely be in a position to contradict it, and it would be a conspiracy with little point. (The idea that Kurds were in on the capture, however, an alternative accusation, is not implausible, though it's also not terribly important, save that if it turned out to be true the government could be accused of taking a teeny bit more glory than deserved; that wouldn't make them look good, but it would also be trivial, and possibly defensible for various reasons of security or such.)

But the debate about the election of 2000 is one that, at the least, is an entirely legitimate debate, with vast complications, that it's reasonable few people actually mastered and understand (whatever conclusion they came to). To put that one in with the others as a simple fake fake, or even one that only stupid people could get wrong or disagree about, is illegitimate and unworthy of such a perceptive and sensible person as you are.

Gary, I never implied that people are stupid for believing the first item.

I'm just pointing out that from the beginning, his presidency and actions have been questioned to a ridiculous degree, with TurkeyGate being the peak.

I don't buy the Kurds story. I think they would've shot him in the back of the head and then left him for us.

As for the President, everybody knows its really George H.W. Bush. They just airbrush the photos to make him look younger.

Gary the problem is the same people who blathered on about the turkey are the same people who believe GWB is an illegitimate President, 'inserted' in the position by the Supreme Court.

They call it a 'coup.' The talk about how democracy 'died' when the Supreme Court issued its' ruling.

In fact, they say that even if Bush were to crush his opponent next November, he'd still be illegitimate because he didn't 'win' the first time around.

It's one thing to debate the election of 2000. It's quite another to say flatly that Bush 'stole' it.

Election results: Irrespective of who you supported, it made the US as the "pillar of democracy" look like a laughing stock. Running fair and transparent elections should be simple. How can such a basic task - allowing all citizens their vote - get so badly stuffed up?

9/11: It happened. How much the US administration and intelligence communities knew before the event is speculation. I guess the truth (like the full story on the JFK assassination) will be suppressed for decades.

Turkey: DILLIGAF? *

Capture of Saddam: It is quite likely the Kurds were involved in the intelligence gathering process. Of all the ethnic groups in Iraq, they probably have the biggest desire to see him captured and brought to justice.


  • DILLIGAF = Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck.

nah. his presidency is real. even if he is just a puppet to the corporate sponsorship that put him there.

oh boy. one of those socal pinko types leaving comments on a small victory. i'm probably just asking for trouble.


9/11: It happened. How much the US administration and intelligence communities knew before the event is speculation. I guess the truth (like the full story on the JFK assassination) will be suppressed for decades.

Oh Ken, don't you know better than to post in a comment section making fun of tin foil opinions with nothing more to say than "Yep, that's me! I'm the sort nutcase you're all laughing at."

The election? again?

Yes, I know it's been a source of contention since day one and therefore should be included, but the idea that there is a rational 'other side' to this is just crazy.

There was a count--the first machine count as in every election in Florida. It was close, but Bush won. As os standard procedure in those cases there was a recount, a machine recount, done almost immediately. Again, it was close, and again Bush won.

The machines just count the placement of holes. They don't care what 'voter intent' might be. They do not discriminate, nor do they show bias, save towrds those who voted using the proper procedures(meaning, if you didn't fill out the ballot correctly, and this had some impact on the nature of the holes in the card, the machine, regardless of your political views, would have a problem with your ballot)

The machines found for Bush at least three times before the ballots began to be subjected to 'discrening voter intent'.

Case closed. All the other rigamarole was sore-loser whining.

Jack, don't forget that news organizations redid the recount after the election. Bush won again.

Well most of that stuff goes into the category of IDGAS (I don't give a shit, especially the turkey crap) though I was a bit peeved about the whole election deal when it happened. Now though, its old hat and complaining about it doesn't do a thing.

The whole duct tape and plastic thing was hilarious though. I've never heard an administration be more patheticly stupid than that. Its like they were trying to renact the days of "Alright kids, this desk will protect you from a nuclear explosion." Yea ok, idiots, way to try and inspire a panic.

It's amazing to know how thoroughly this 'moron' president has deceived us so completely for these last 3 years..

But if Bush is the moron the left is so sure that he is, how do we have all of these brilliant charades of their divising, and how have they remained undetected, especially with the media searching through dumpsters trying to dig something up?

Remember that none of the 'independent' recounts of the Florida vote determined that Gore received more votes than Bush. None of them. How loudly would any one of these 'independent' groups have screamed if it had turned out any other way.

I guess these folks believe that bin Laden's already been captured, and this will somehow be kept secret and announced on or about October 15, 2004. And the strategic value of announcing Saddam's capture (even though it was the Kurds and not the coalition) on December 14 was a brilliant piece of timing, to coincide with.....uh....with.....what was that theory again?

It's 'Hate Bush'. Nothing more, nothing less. If all they can hang their hats on is a dressed-up turkey, I'd say things are going pretty well.


The fact that there's so much overblown hysteria about Bush doesn't mean that there aren't many perfectly reasonable, sane reasons to hope he isn't re-elected.

The most disturbing thing for me is that moderates seem to have been almost completely marginalized in both parties...

everything is fake? even the orgasms?

Whether or not the Kurds found him first, I wasn't giving credit to Bush for it anyway.

I regard such theories as I do any religious theories~possible but highly unlikely.
Made up by humans to "persuade" other humans.
Based on faith alone; no actual proof.

Four years' worth of education there wasted: see, I KNEW that DC was fake! Admittedly, I was there at the height (depth?) of the Marion Barry administration, and that did kind of make it pretty obvious. ;-)

The Saddam capture was REALLY a military intelligence ("two words combined that CAN'T make sense!") victory, not one for the President... although, politically, it HAS to be credited to the current administration. It's nice to see intelligence used FOR us in a timely manner, instead of it being revealed and used as an "I told you so" political item....

As far as the Kurds, I'm quite sure they had SOMETHING to do with it, if only in an intelligence gathering role.

The terror alerts DO sort of stink of manipulation, if you really analyze it from an objective standpoint. I can see how they can be manipulated to draw attention to the Homeland Security (a Bushie creation, don't forget....) issues and away from things that could be considered negative for the administration, which there ARE valid things to criticize this President for.

As far as the "illegal" election... c'mon, get over it already, people.... there were counts, recounts and recounts of recounts and NONE of them proved that Gore came out ahead. In an election, one CAN'T attempt to decipher "voter intent", that's called election tampering and as far as I know, it's illegal EVERYWHERE in the U.S. Gore lost, face it and move on. If those fools are so intent on proving him a "false president, etc." then make sure he doesn't get re-elected. The best way to go about that would be to PUT UP A DECENT CANDIDATE AGAINST HIM, which they aren't doing.... Howard Dean? Ba!

"In fact, Washington D.C. is nothing more than a cardboard city, populated by actors and droids."

Now, that's intriguing! I could actually see how that could be considered true......

Sorry so long, but the Greeblie domain is down right now and I HAD to comment on this....

everything is fake? even the orgasms?
No, of course not! Um, actually, let me make a few phone calls...

But seriously, I have no doubt that there are millions of people with one or more reasoned, rational reasons for disagreeing with G.W. Bush. That said, how come none of them seems to get any air time from our glorious television networks? It's always "Bush lied! He stole the election! He kills puppies! His socks don't match! He didn't contribute to Michele's tip jar!"

Even when many of those on TV begin with reasoned discourse, once it's pointed out that, for instance, a coalition of over a dozen nations is not "acting unilaterally", the gloves come off and the tin foil hats go on. Mork calling Orson, the turkey is fake!

I read that Nixon was personally a cold man, who never seemed likable--or tried to--to those who met him. This probably made it easier for the lunatic fringe to seethe and rage with such wild hatred of the man. But reports and interviews I've seen with Bush paint him as a personable, likable man. And yet still the irrational, blind hatred spews forth, bringing with it the seeds of its own destruction:

Howard Dean.

You forgot one Michele: Gadhafi's agreement to give up WMDs is a result of UN sanctions and internal pressures. It's proof that Bush should have given diplomacy in Iraq more of a chance. And since the removal of sanctions will give US oil companies access to Libya, well you all can take it from there.

See DenBeste for a very plausible explanation of Colonel Moe coming to his senses. Now that we've shown that we will use force - we're being taken a lot more seriously by some of these knuckleheads.

Remember also that Gadhafi has been pounded by us already. Whether or not the 'vast conspiracy' is pulling the strings on this one, too, there is still something to be said for the fact that he'd rather not get hit again.

And of course, it is always all about the oil. Has the price of gas has fallen so significantly since we've liberated Iraq? I'll say it again: we get the majority of our imported oil from Venezuela. We haven't invaded them recently. Believe what you want to.


And I thought all of the time our country was being run by the jooooos? My mistake. It is really being run by those little turtles that used to be kept as pets.

And the turtles answer to the mice. Right, Slartibartfast?

"Soon the truth will be discovered and everyone will realize that George W. Bush does not even exist."

Frank Miller already came up with that one. He envisioned a CGI president exposed by a weirdly leftist wacko Jimmy Olsen in the disappointing sequel to "The Dark Knight Returns." Ugh.

Now this is one of the silliest things I've ever read in a thread; this comment by MIKER:

"The most disturbing thing for me is that moderates seem to have been almost completely marginalized in both parties... "

Hey Miker, moderates marginalize themselves. "Middle of the road" means yellow lines and dead animals and nasty accidents.

I disagree with a LOT of what Republicans and the Bush administration is doing right now, especially spending; but democrats and anybody who claims to be "moderate" who would vote for them, needs to be horsewhipped and exiled to the former soviet states to see what happens when you allow socialism to take over your country.

Every moonbat I've ever talked to who claimed to be a "moderate" was so freakin' ignorant of the constitution and this nation's history that I had to work very hard to resist the temptation to slap the snot out of them.

At least self-proclaimed liberals are honest about their intent. They believe in what they are saying and are sincere. Sincerely wrong, but honest. Moderates are deluded and stupid to a fault. They are the Neville Chamberlains of the world. They can and will be seduced by those who would thrust a knife in their back, and they want all the rest of us to "just get along."

No thanks, Miker.

This is a comment in general.

I know Michelle's post was satire, and it was pretty funny, but some of the comments in this thread demonstrate an incredible amount of ignorance about our government and the constitution.

First of all, no individual, no citizen has a right to vote on who the president of the USA is going to be. Ah, Ah, Ah, . . . before you start fussing and fuming, pull out your copy of the constitution and read it thoroughly.

Pay attention boys and girls, the president is elected by an electoral college of delegates. An ingenious method to make sure that popular vote by more populated urban centers could not dominate and squelch the rights and the voice of more agrarian and rural areas and states.

The constitution was written to allow States to choose their own method of selecting delegates to represent their own best interests in selecting a federal president. Any state legislature could pass a law that deemed the selection of their delegates to the electoral college in any manner they see fit.

Let's dispense with another awful, horrible, nightmarish idea. This country was not designed to be a democracy.

Don't just parrot the stupid crap you were told in the government propaganda centers ("Public Schools"), show me one mention of "democracy" in the founding documents. Read the Federalist Papers. Nothing good said about democracy. My favorite line from Mel Gibson's "The Patriot": "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"

"Certain unalienable rights" can only be assured with a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. A democracy is a sure way to tyranny of mob rule.

The founders, by their own writings, envisioned a weak federal government that only served to protect the interests of several states when necessary, in the affairs of international issues and in settling minor disputes between the several states.

Sorry Ken

This is nothing personal, but could you please refrain from flogging:

"I guess the truth (like the full story on the JFK assassination) will be suppressed for decades."

that dead Oliver Stone?

Thanks in advance

Oh and about that kurds capturing saddam thingee, here:
is an article that claims it was the Mossad who did it.

The Kurds? The Mossad?

Everybody knows it was Division 6.

Commander Will

I appreciate all you had to say on this subject. A comment: I thought that our form of government is a "representative democracy" otherwise known as a "republic". Most people, it's true, don't realize the difference. I plead guilty as well until I began reading blogs. (Although, my knowledge of the constitution over all is probably above average but far from extensive. I'm always trying to learn more.)

Of course a pure democracy is unworkable in a large society in a large geographic area so our federal system works well and was ingenious by design. Smart fellows - our founding fathers. I often ask myself how I got so blessed to be born here.

Will, not to split hairs, but it's an "indirect" or representative democracy, so it is intended to be a democracy....

indirect means you elect representatives to make the decisions for you, direct means you go to the meetings and make the decisions. A direct democracy only works in a small population and gets WAY outta control when attempted on a large scale.

Republic and Constitutional republic are just forms of indirect democracy.

At least, that's what I learned in civics....

The founders, by their own writings, envisioned a weak federal government that only served to protect the interests of several states when necessary, in the affairs of international issues and in settling minor disputes between the several states.

Originally, yes that's true and they wrote up the Articles Of Confederation to support that. They quickly realized that a weak federal government wouldn't work in this context and after nearly every state pretty much went bankrupt, re-wrote it into the Constitution which gave more power to the federal gov't. Granted, they never intended it to become the nanny state it is, nor did they intend to allow the federal gov't to overrule the states but that is, in fact what's happened.

you are right on about the electoral college, though.... although it prevents the "populated urban centers" from dominating, it also prevents the popular vote from winning. Each system has it's flaws.

I forgot who said it, but this quote sums it up perfectly:

"it's the worst system in the world.... except for all the others."

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government on earth - except for all the others"

The fact is that Bush won the election according to the LAW. And Clinton/Gore continued to show their contempt for the LAW as they had in the past. (uhhhhhh, ah didn't know you meant sex, Mr. Starr)

Amy Goodman on Democracy Now has lead with the Kurd story two days in a row. Why do people who spend half their time criticizing "the media" fall for every tabloid tale that tickles their fancy?

Just a quick civics bit: A republic is simply a nation in which the head of state is not a monarch. This usually involves some sort of democratic electoral process, but it does not require it. For instance, I would have to call Pakistan a republic (and its official name is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) since Musharraf is the head of state, but it is certainly not a democracy.

A democracy is not necessarity a republic, either: the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada are most certainly parliamentary democracies, but none is a republic since Elizabeth II is the head of state for all three. (Weirdest thing I saw in three years in Australia: the original law proclaiming the Australian High Court the court of last resort for that country [previously cases could still be appealed to the British High Court] in Canberra. It was signed "Elizabeth, Queen of Australia".)

The US is a federal republic, formed by a number of states. Over time these states have all granted the right to vote for the government to the public, but that wasn't always the case. Originally, remember, state legislatures selected senators; now senators are chosen democratically. The president, key feature of our republic, is most certainly not chosen democratically, hence the never-ending confusion over the 2000 election.

I hope that is resolved next November.

Merry Christmas, everyone.