Today on Blogcritics
Home » Breaking News: Yes Bush Can is Covert Liberal Attack Group

Breaking News: Yes Bush Can is Covert Liberal Attack Group

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

They thought they were clever, but not quite clever enough. I’m blond, but I’m not stupid. Check this e-mail these clowns sent to me:

RatherGate proved that bloggers are the best fact checkers. That is
why we are writing to a few bloggers asking for help.

Yes Bush Can has collected several documents that are clearly suspect.
But we need your help to prove they are fake:

http://www.yesbushcan.com/falsedocs.shtml

Let’s spring to action before these documents needlessly tarnish the
reputation of our Commander and Chief. You know the drill: analyze the

handwriting, search for factual errors, and post your discoveries.

And keep us posted by sending email to FakeDocs@yesbushcan.com.

Thanks in advance for your help.

YesBushCan

Sounds like you’re doing a noble cause by spreading our nation’s leaders’ youthful indiscretions all over the Internet, right? Proving them wrong, doing Bush and Cheney a favor, right? Think again.

When further exploring their website you will see a page that appears to make fun of some of Bush’s policies and tries to make viewers falsely believe Bush has policies regarding various issues that simply do not exist. Take for example the draft. Why would this group attempt to gain support for the draft when in fact President Bush does not support a draft and has said he does not support a draft? In fact, it was Democrats who introduced a failed bill to re-create the draft into Congress only recently, with Rep. Charley Rangel, (D)-New York, being the sponsor who introduced the bill, even with Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld saying there’s no need for a draft. Therefore, since Democrats are pushing to re-create the draft, we can clearly concur that the clowns who sent me this e-mail are clearly Democrats, since they’re petitioning to re-instate the draft. Why would anyone want to re-instate the draft?

John Kerry says he doesn’t support a draft, but he also said he’s against and for the war in Iraq. How can we tell that he doesn’t want a draft when a fellow Democrat, Charley Rangel, just tried re-instating it and a covert liberal group is petitioning for its re-instatement all at the same time?

-John Mudd
“Mr. Real Estate”

Powered by

About Mr. Real Estate

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    I got an e-mail from these clowns too. What they are doing is akin to “push-polling.” Too bad for them it’s so obvious…

    (But how the hell did they get my e-mail address? It wasn’t detected as SPAM by Yahoo…)

  • bri

    i don’t understand this post. is this post itself intended to be satire in response to satire? or are you really this stupid?
    of course the yes men are satire. their entire schtick is relatively unsubtle satire which was brought about initially by a rather hilariously earnest case of mistaken identity.

    yet, somehow, you take their stated support of the reinstatement of the draft as sincerity.

    huh.

    it doesn’t really get much less subtle than this, guys.

  • http://www.insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    Bri,

    If you aren’t familiar with them the e-mail appears to be a serious request from a group that appears to support Bush. Only after more deeply examining their website do you realize that they’re not really Bush supporters, as their e-mail to me suggested.

    Satire is a wonderful thing, and it’s even better when the satirists are bi-partisan, like Leno and Letterman, rather than these clowns who are only pretending to help President Bush.

    Does anyone know who’s funding them? I’m guessing they’re another Soros group, but I could be wrong.

  • boomcrashbaby

    This reminds me of when Fox news ran that story on communistsforkerry.com. They presented the story as the site being serious, and then afterwards had to issue an apology when they found out they were duped and that communistsforkerry is actually a Republican run site.

    Perhaps yesbushcan.com is in response to what the Republicans are doing, by using the SAME tactics.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    So the President says he is against a draft. The question is, why do you believe him THIS time?

    The President was against nation building, now he’s for it.

    The President said we had to fight Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction. Now he says the war was for some other reason.

    The President ran as a conservative, but now he’s running the goverment on a borrow and spend budget of unprecedented scope.

    The President ran as a conservative, but decided the constitution was an optional feature of America when it comes to the rights of American Citizens to get a fair trial.

    NOW, the President says the words “I don’t support a draft” and THAT is supposed to end the argument on the coming draft?

    Don’t bring a weak argument like what the President “says” into an important issue like this. What the President “says” is PROVEN to be an unreliable indicator of the truth.

    “There’s an old sayin’ in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee,” he (Bush) told the students, “that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.'”

  • http://www.insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    President Bush never said he supports nation building. He does, however, support the formation of a free nation out of the former dictator-run Iraq and abolishing terrorism to ensure a safe, free world, and he has said this numerous times, and he is doing this.

    Presdent Bush and others have said that the intelligence community provided him and others in the cabinet with information stating that there are WMDs in Iraq. This misinformation lead to the call for the reformation of the FBI, CIA, et al by numerous members of Congress, and several proposals have already been brought forward.

    John Kerry has a 20-year long record of waffling. President Bush, while I cannot see a waffling record in his history (waffling meaning you change your position on an issue simply for political gain), if he has ever waffled at any time whatsoever, it is far less than Kerry.

    My fellow Americans, ask what man will waffle more to get your vote, and what man will likely make more principled decisions while in office, and vote for that person. I prefer principles over politics, so I’m voting for Bush. It’s an easy decision.

    If YesBushCan is a GOP-supported group I hope someone will say so and prove me wrong, but if they were a Bush-supporting group they would likely call themselves YesKerryCan and petition to re-instate the draft in Kerry’s name, not Bush’s.

    Maybe we should start a group called YesKerryCanWaffle. When I buy waffles John Kerry actually pops into my head. When I buy Resolve George W. Bush pops into my head. Go figure.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    Screw “prinipled decisions”, as a patriotic American who holds the needs of America ABOVE the needs of the President, I want “CORRECT DECISIONS” not “principled but wrong decisions”.

    It takes more that WANTING to do the right thing to lead our country, it takes the ABILITY and JUDGEMENT to actually know what the right thing is.

    The Presidency is not a job for those who “mean well”.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    During the debate, when asked whether he would pick Supreme Court judges based on whether they supported Roe V. Wade, the president waffled so much I thought we would need a extra load of syrup.

    John Kerry said flat out what he would do with Supreme Court appointments. Where was the straight forward moral leadership from Bush? Bush can run, be he can’t hide from his right wing agenda (but he tried to hide from it during the debate).

  • andy marsh

    as I remember it, he said that he would pick justices that would interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench…like all those judges in MA and CA like to do

  • http://www.insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    Nor is the presidency a job for those who hire big time covert liberal attack groups to tarnish the good name of our nation’s current Commander In Chief.

    Please show me where all of John Kerry’s decisions were the “right” decisions, including the non-principled ones. Take for example the vote against the bill to fund our troops in Iraq (the one he voted for then against when he ran against “anti-war” Howard Dean in the Democratic primary). Kerry’s message to our troops then was: I support our troops, except when supporting them costs me the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Principled? Definitely not. Right decisions? Well, with Kerry you get both right and wrong, but the results you get depend on whether or not it will cost him politically at the time, so the decision may not have long-term positive results (that’s how we got our huge national budget deficit, trade deficit and national debt – short-term, poll-inspired thinking). Extra syrup and butter and a giant stack, please. Oh, and better make that the all you can eat waffle-fest meal. After all, twenty years of waffling can fill up a lot of plates. Kerry’s waffling may actually be good for the world, so we should keep him in the Senate. After all, there’s no other place where he could continue waffling for 20 more years, and all those waffles could solve the world hunger problem pretty easily, so let him stay where he can keep making those waffles.

    President Bush’s position on judges is and always has been that he would pick judges who would interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. John Kerry would probably pick judges who are like him, so they would change their rulings every five minutes or so. Ah, if only we could feed the hungry with all those waffles.

    Here’s what the Boston Globe, a newspaper in his own state, wrote about John Kerry’s waffling:

    His name is John Kerry.

    Equivocating politicians are sometimes accused of trying to be “all things to all people,” but few have taken the practice of expedience and shifty opportunism to Kerry’s level. Massachusetts residents have known this about their junior senator for a long time. Now the rest of the country is going to find out.

    Here’s how it works: Say you’re in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. “I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country,” he said in December 2002. “I support killing people who declare war on our country.”

    But if you’re opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that’s OK — Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. “Your policy,” he told Weld, “would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.”

    What does Kerry really think? Who knows?

    ’nuff said.

  • boomcrashbaby

    is the presidency a job for those who hire big time covert liberal attack groups

    Who is running for President that has hired any ‘covert liberal attack group’? Can you please cite your source that Kerry is directly responsible for this?

    Nice of you to skim over the comments of the Republican version of the same tactic that so appalls you.

    I can just see Ann Coulter running in circles over this. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

  • andy marsh

    I need to read her book so I can learn how to talk to you people!!!

  • http://www.insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    is the presidency a job for those who hire big time covert liberal attack groups

    Who is running for President that has hired any ‘covert liberal attack group’? Can you please cite your source that Kerry is directly responsible for this?

    Whether or not he’s directly responsible is not the issue. The issue is he has not insisted that groups such as these that use dishonest, unethical means stop using them.

    Of course, he would probably publicly tell them to stop then privately tell them to keep up the good work, knowing Kerry. He would certainly want to be a waffling good sport to a group that’s trying to help him. Waitress, more syrup please. Thank you.

  • boomcrashbaby

    This is an awfully one-sided perspective. Where is the cry for Bush to denounce communistsforkerry.com?

    Whether or not he’s directly responsible is not the issue.

    Quite a big change from:

    Nor is the presidency a job for those who hire big time covert liberal attack groups

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    This entry reads like something the John Birch Society would be embarassed to be associated with. Neither common sense nor minimal research have any relationship to it. Where does ‘Yes, Bush Can’ say it is pro-Bush, pray tell? It doesn’t. I get emails from groups all over the political spectrum. Some of them have names that one can misinterpret. Yes, Bush Can is clearly tongue-in-cheek. But, common sense suggests that. Where is the blogger’s common sense? The item cited as representing the Boston Globe‘s position in regard to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) does not. It is an op-ed piece by a single writer, Right Winger Jeff Jacoby. In reality, the Boston Globe has endorsed Kerry for president.

    The rest of the entry is a pathetic far Right, ‘I love authoritarian rule’ rant. Indeed, the false claims about Yes, Bush Can and the Boston Globe are used as pretexts for the rant. Amateurish. Childish. The kind of ‘writing’ that adults should be ashamed of perpetrating.

    Yes, Bush Can has been identified as pranksters who oppose Bush for weeks. A simple Google search would have brought up this story from September. Instead, we get this public temper tantrum falsely claiming their identity has been hidden.

    BTW, Kerry is leading hands down in newspaper endorsements. Even Bush’s hometown paper has endorsed Kerry.

  • http://www.anncoulter.com Ann

    When liberals can’t win on the merits of the argument they attempt to destroy the messenger. Here is exhibit A.

  • andy marsh

    One minute we’re supposed to make up our own mind and the next we’re supposed to heed the opinions of liberal op-ed writers in newspapers.

    I’m lost…guess I’ll just ask my daughter who I should vote for!!!

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    I don’t see liberals losing an argument. Not that my comment is about partisan politics per se. It is about posting misinformation.

    ~ Yes, Bush Can (the perpetrator mispunctuated the name throughout his entry) is the brain child of welll-known pranksters, the Yes Men. Not only have they not kept what they are up to secret, they have talked to the press and made a movie about their activities. Secret group? Hardly.

    ~ The Boston Globe endorsed John Kerry. Furthermore, it has given an in-depth explanation of why it believes he is a person capable of leading the nation. Read it here. Yet, we are given the impression that the newspaper opposes Kerry because of a piece by a single Right Wing writer. Again, misinformation.

    Such sloppiness is not to be condoned.

  • http://www.anncoulter.com Ann

    Liberals are more skilled at changing the subject and calling their opponents names in debates than conservatives. Some believe it is the only way they can win when they have failed to dictate our own thoughts to us.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Liberals are more skilled at changing the subject

    What??

    This election is about:
    1) Where was Kerry on Christmas Eve over 30 years ago.
    2) Does a purple heart only go to really bad wounds or does it go to boo-boos too?
    3) Is it okay to call a lesbian, a lesbian in public?
    4) John Edwards has metrosexual hair.

    What this election is not about is:
    1) American soldiers dying.
    2) The economy dying.
    3) American unity is dying and we are the most divided nation since the civil war.
    4) Separation of church and state is dying.
    5) Equality is dying.
    5) Personal liberties are dying.

    And liberals are skilled at changing the subject?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Off-Topic:

    I read recently that Real Estate types favor Bush over Kerry by something like 5-1. This is due, in part, to Bush’s support the “ownership society.”

    African-American home ownership has increased under Bush by close to 2 million. Hispanic home ownership has also increased. (Yeah, and it’s the same for us whiteys too…)

    Kerry is far more interested in “rent control” and such. Therefore, real estate people tend to overwhelmingly support Bush.

    Like Mr. Real Estate. Oh, and the US military.

    Felons, OTOH, tend to support Kerry. So do trial lawyers and union goons.

    Buss is leading in nearly all National Polls. Thank God…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Bush* is leading in nearly all Nat’l polls, I meant… :-/

  • http://www.insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    Homeownership is a large part of the American Dream, which is one of the reasons I’m voting for the man who has broke records in making that happen for Americans – George W. Bush!

    It’s ownership vs. paying for something you don’t own this election year. Ownership, baby, all the way!

    Renting puts the cost and the burden on you without the rights of ownership, so why would anyone support a candidate who doesn’t strongly favor ownership?

  • andy marsh

    OTOH?

  • http://www.insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    OTOH=on the other hand

    Hope that helps. Have a great day!

  • andy marsh

    thank you…I should have known that…first cup!!!