It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Undeniable proof that Bush has lied about the war on terror and Iraq.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I consider myself a Moderate Liberal. I believe that when you give someone a reason for doing something you should stand behind your reasons. To obtain a clear objective you must be steadfast in your ideals and beliefs, otherwise, the people you are attempting to influence to achieve your goal will see through your attempts at manipulation. After all, attempting to make someone see things as you do is manipulation.

Something I do not understand is why would someone make a serious claim about a nation, back up their claim with evidence of their cause, only to change the reasoning behind the actions once the goal was perceived as achieved? Some might call that lying. I am here today to accuse President George Bush of doing just this very thing.

In 1990, Iraq attempted to annex Kuwait and used the excuse that Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqi oil reserves near the boarder. President Bush sr. had justification to attack Iraq in defense of an oil producing ally that had no course of retaliation. The reason was straight forward and never wavered. The war ended almost as fast as it began. President Bush did not push all the way into Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein because this was not a needed course of action. Saddam just needed to be disarmed. This is just what happened.

Flash to the present day and we have a new Iraq war that is being waged by President Bush jr. His motivations have been rather unclear because of the constant flip flop of reasons and excuses being thrown at the US population almost daily. The biggest flip flop of them all was changing the focus of the war on terror to the war on Saddam. This was achieved through skillful media manipulation and craftily worded speeches.


Here is a list of Bush’s statements in chronological order:

United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production
of biological weapons."

Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used
to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:
"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas
centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents."

Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

First off, we know that WMD was never found. Either he had faulty intelligence, or he lied to us. I don’t think that the mightiest nation in the world is going to hand the president bad intell. We also know that the shift in reasoning has turned to the establishment of democracy in the mid east, as well as disposing of a ruthless dictator. Neither of which were original reasons of going to war. The fact that all the reasons for going to war have been excised and reduced to these two basic reasons should be a cause for alarm throughout the American population.


The discrepancy list for President Bush’s political statements are hard to ignore. Let’s look at a few more: Taken from www.50bushflipflops.com...

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him. It's not that important. It's not our priority." He also did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech this year.
May 16, 2003: U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer announces a sweeping operation to ensure that Baath Party members are removed from critical positions in the public sector. This ban could affect as many as 30,000 senior Baath Party members. Thursday, April 22, 2004: "The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions. . . . The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq."

Bush says we found the weapons of mass destruction..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03] Bush says we haven't found weapons of mass destruction "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

Bush says it is impossible to distinguish between Al qaeda and Saddam... "You can't distinguish between Al qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] says Saddam had no role in Al qaeda plot "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

Bush vows to have a un vote no matter what... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03] Bush withdraws request for vote "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

After the murder and mutilation of four U.S. civilian employees in Fallujah in central Iraq, U.S. officials in the country were adamant that overwhelming force would be applied to go into Fallujah and impose law and order, U.S. style. Then, U.S. forces held back from Fallujah and U.S. Marine forces were given the go-ahead to return to their old "softly-softly" policy that senior officials angrily repudiated after the killings. -FLIP: U.S. military commanders gave a grim ultimatum to rebel forces in Fallujah to surrender all their weapons or be crushed. Then that ultimatum was watered down. Only heavy weapons were ordered to be surrendered. The rebels will be allowed to retain their light weapons, including automatic rifles. That is a crucial concession to any militia or guerrilla force as possession of such weapons gives them the power to continue to enforce or even extend their political control over their subject population.

The problem does not lie just with President Bush jr. It also lies within some of his closest staff. Condoleezza Rice has been heard saying that Iraq was within one year of manufacturing WMD. Two years later, Mrs. Rice said that no one ever said Iraq was even close to manufacturing of WMD. Don’t even get me started on Rumsfield. He can’t even keep Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s names right in a 10 minute speech.
President Bush and his government counterparts are responsible for providing a stable and safe environment for the American citizens. It is apparent that all he is capable of is lying to the American public to further his own agenda. It should be noted that this president is the only president to twice deceive the American public with the intention of bringing about safety to the world through war. Can’t he just choke on that pretzel some more?






John Dean for The History News Network: hnn.us...

www.50bushflipflops.com...

Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen: LA Times: LAtimes.com

Devon M. Largo: www.pol.uiuc.edu...


*Edit in Url tag






[edit on 27-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Of course he lied. It was never about weapons of mass destruction. That was just the lie they needed to tell to get the American people on board with the invasion. Initially it was all about WMD and not regime change... remember? No, this plan had been in the offing long before 9/11.

9/11 was just an early Christmas present...and IMHO one of the government's own making.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Read House of Bush/House of Saud and you'll see that Bush had already predetermined that he would remove Saddam and "liberate" Iraq and was looking for any excuse to justify it. He specifically told members of his cabinet to "make it happen" so obviously a bit of embellishment had to go on in order for us to buy the bull.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I wrote this as a comparison of Bushes statments about Iraq and the war on terror for those who constantly say Bush has held steadfast in his reasonong. It should be clear that Bush is the TRUE flip floper. The KING of flip flops.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Bush has to go to war he owned to the Carlyle group and cheney bodies in the haliburton.

He has done very well for all of them including his own father's interest.

We know he has been very well rewarded with a second term.

Hail to the power.

All this didn't had to do with 9/11 at all he was going into Iraq with or without 9/11.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I fully expected a backlash of conservative hate rhetoric for posting the truth here. Maybe the truth scared them all away
Its hard to deny the lie's when they are right there in front of you.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Lie
n
1.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
3.To present false information with the intention of deceiving

Can you prove Bush had bad and false intel and information? Yes but thats not the same as having proof he lied let alone undeniable proof. See a lie entails deliberate intention to decieve. You got no proof of that

A 1000 years ago people might tell you the earth was flat were they lying? The answer is no they really thought the earth was flat they had bad information but they were not deliberately giving false information.

You do have Undeniable proof that Bush had bad intel though good job your only a few months behind the news.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

You do have Undeniable proof that Bush had bad intel though good job your only a few months behind the news.



I have more than that. Read my post agian. I have posted direct quotes from Bush saying two different things on more than one subject. Good job on being only a few months behind on your reading skills



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I read it already

See thats only proof that he had bad information. Can you prove that at the time Bush knew that was indeed false information?

If not you cant prove a lie



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
You are not reading what I have posted. If you did, you would have realized that there are examples of him approving one thing one time, then dissapproving of the very same policy just a few months later. He says we will win the war. Then he said the war is cant be won. There are so many examples such as this listed above that it should have stood out like a smelly turd.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Here is an example just incase you missed it.

Bush says it is impossible to distinguish between Al qaeda and Saddam... "You can't distinguish between Al qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] says Saddam had no role in Al qaeda plot "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Can you prove Bush had bad and false intel and information?


Yes. I wrote this a couple of weeks ago in another thread:

BushCo circulated a "rumour" that Saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger (for the fabrication of WMD). This rumour was completely refuted by one Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent to Niger to investigate:

Joseph Wilson's NYTimes article


But lo' and behold...the info appeared anyway in Bush's State of the Union address in January 03:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

State of the Onion

This is just one example...

And it continued...in March 03 Cheney said: "we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Bottom line is, the inspectors, including Hans Blix, were there, they were doing their job...but guess what... they weren't finding the so called WMD. That's why the Security Council did not go forward with a resolution for war, despite BushCo's best efforts of making the case - with satellite photo[shop] imagery no less.

Tell me why the U.S. couldn't wait until the inspectors finished their work? Because they knew what the result was going to be! They knew that they wouldn't get the support of the world community if there was no proof of WMD. And this invasion had been planned for a very long time, so they had to discredit Hans Blix:

Blix: War Planned Long in Advance

Blix Smeared by Pentagon

Oh no...they lied and the truth is coming out. What will happen as a result I don't know as BushCo are puppets for far more sinister characters.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
You are not reading what I have posted. If you did, you would have realized that there are examples of him approving one thing one time, then dissapproving of the very same policy just a few months later. He says we will win the war. Then he said the war is cant be won. There are so many examples such as this listed above that it should have stood out like a smelly turd.


See changing a stance on policy that would be proof of Flip flopping. I showed you the definition of a lie I suggest reading it again or changing you title to "Proof Bush had Bad Info and is a Flip flopper"



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
As I stated above, I dont think the most powerfull country in the world is going to hand the President Bad Intell. That is a joke. There was no bad intell, and you can see above in his own words the lies/flip flops he is feeding us. By the way, if I said I liked chocolate, then 5 minutes later said I didnt, Im lieing one of those times.

[edit on 1/27/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
AlwaysLearning Im not trying to say Bush didnt have bad or false intel thats clear its not the question. Having false information is not a lie unless you can they knew it was false at the time.

Good luck proving that though

Theres many News outlets that would love that type of proof and I suggest getting in contact with them if you find it

[edit on 27-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Amazing that it is right there in balck and white. In Bush's own words, and yet, there are those who accept his lies are for the better of the country. Its right there in his own words. His own lies/flip flops on un vetos and resolutions, Iraqi policy, and a myriad of other topics. But yet, he did it for our saftey, so that makes it OK. well, we were safe from Iraq. No threat there. That was a well known fact. Untill ..............



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
As I stated above, I dont think the most powerfull country in the world is going to hand the President Bad Intell. That is a joke. There was no bad intell, and you can see above in his own words the lies/flip flops he is feeding us. By the way, if I said I liked chocolate, then 5 minutes later said I didnt, Im lieing one of those times.

[edit on 1/27/05 by Kidfinger]


No bad intel
you dont know the Intel Agency very well do you. The CIA, MI-6, KGB all made mistakes. If you think they are perfect you would be wrong.

Yeah you would be lying about the chocolate because one of those times you were giving false information with the intent to decieve. Tastebuds do change about every 7 years not every 5 minutes so if made that statement 7 years apart you might be telling the truth.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
For pete's sake! would somebody please post a picture of when Rumsfeld was displaying to our nation, the complex al-qaeda bases all supposedly hidden in Afgan caves/mountains.

That was a huge lie right there if i ever saw one! A pure fabrication of mistruths.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
OH PLEASE People like shadow here are playing with words wanting us to believe now it's bad intel, NATIONS don't go to war on bad intel that only happens in Hollywood movies kid, Bush got caught in a "HUGE LIE" and now the only way he can deflect attention from his real intentions on going into Iraq (OIL) is to now come with this "FANTASTIC" TALE of "BAD INTEL" and people like realy beleive this crap????????

[edit on 27-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX



No bad intel
you dont know the Intel Agency very well do you. The CIA, MI-6, KGB all made mistakes. If you think they are perfect you would be wrong.

Yeah you would be lying about the chocolate because one of those times you were giving false information with the intent to decieve. Tastebuds do change about every 7 years not every 5 minutes so if made that statement 7 years apart you might be telling the truth.


Um.....I hav enough faith in our intell to be accurate about who is producing WMD and who is not. That is not a little mistake. That is a major F up. Our Intell would never make that kind oif mistake. If there were no weapons in Iraq, Bush knew about it and knowingly lied to us. Also, Bush's first claim was Nukes. Specifically Nukes. NOT WMD as a whole. That didnt come about till it was time to start ramping up the escalating war ferver of the administration. There were no WMD found, and I think the CIA knew about it, and Bush is still replacing members who disagree with what he did with the information given to him. Its amazing about Mr. G. Tennent isnt it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join