Desperate Bush Aided by Corrupt NeoCon Group

Latest from Cheryl Seal Reports:

http://cherylsealreports.bravehost.com/

Bush Draws Support from Corrupt Group Dedicated to Fixing Foreign Elections

Bush's latest "my poll numbers are low so I better scare everyone" anti-terrorism speech - was so far over the top that even some reporters were offended that he'd try to foist it off on them. In this ridiculous piece of self-serving propaganda, Bush wants us all to believe that Bin Laden plans to turn the western world into a "Caliphate" (a term from the era of the medieval Crusades, no less!). Bush must have known that his line of BS would be scoffed at by the average person, so he made his spiel in from of a group guaranteed to applaud it: The so-called "National Endowment for Democracy."

No, it has NOTHING to do with the National Endowment for the Arts" or any other legitimate group. The NED is a NeoCon front group dedicated to rigging (or at least trying their damnedest" to rig) foreign elections. These folks pour millions into derailing democracy in other nations so that the "climate" in said nations will be more favorable to corporate exploitation.

Antiwar.com tried to sound the alarm on the NED two years ago. Here's an excerpt from an article at that site on the NED:

"In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, Barbara Conry notes that:

"NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements...

"...the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of 'promoting democracy.' Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED's detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls...

"...In the final analysis, the endowment embodies the most negative aspects of both private aid and official foreign aid – the pitfalls of decentralized 'loose cannon' foreign policy efforts combined with the impression that the United States is trying to 'run the show' around the world."

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul79.html

BUSH'S POLL NUMBERS HIT ALL TIME LOW

Bush was at it again - like clockwork, as soon as his poll numbers dip, a new "terrorist threat" goes up and Bush makes a big show of being "tough on terrorism." But the public isn't buying it this time. Today, a new CBS poll shows that Bjush's approval ratings have fallen to their lowest (re: CBS polls) EVER: 37%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml

Bush's Latest My-Poll-Numbers-Are-Too-Low Terrorist Threat Scoffed at By Homeland Security, NYC Officials.....and Just about Everyone Else

I mean, just how stupid does Bush think the American public is? In any case, there are smart people (despite his best efforts to get rid of them) working in the FBI, CIA, etc. Everyone has noticed now over the past four years that EVERY SINGLE TIME Bush's poll numbers sink, an ominous new terrorist alert is put out and Bush gives a "tough on terrorism" speech or talk. It was not lost on the public, either, that the "terrorist alerts" showed up on a regular basis in the run up to election 2004, and that they were always timed to bump key Kerry events out of headlines.

So this week, as Bush's poll numbers continue to sink, when a new "terrorist threat", this time against New York city subways is issued THE SAME DAY that Bush commandeers the media for a "tough on terrorism" speech, is it any wonder that no one buys it? Worse, the folks at Homeland Security say that the threat was not credible? It it wasn't, then who issued the alert to the media (who, like Pavlov's dogs, drooled and went right for the bait)? You can bet it was someone at the White House, not at Homeland Security.

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/07/nyregion/07alert.html?hp&ex=1128744000&en=8aef708139909860&ei=5094&partner=homepage