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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
As much as I dislike Bush, I have to agree with Shadow on this one. There is not "Undeniable proof that Bush has lied about the war on terror and Iraq." Not any that I saw. Although it was a good compiliation of the administration's changes in policies and positions, and it was undeniable proof Bush doesn't know his @ss from a hole in the wall. But undeniable proof of Bush lying, would be perhaps some sort of documentation or memo from the Bush administration to intel agencies specifically ordering them to fabricate information in order to accuse Saddam of wrong doings. You know, stuff that holds up in court. And before I come under attack from my fellow Bush haters, I am by no stretch under the impression Bush didn't lie, but proof of that this thread does not provide. If somebody can come up with actual proof, we can impeach Bush.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I have provided many examples of Bush lieing. Here is another in case you missed it.

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]

There is just one of the instances I have shown him to be lieing in.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I have provided many examples of Bush lieing. Here is another in case you missed it.

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]

There is just one of the instances I have shown him to be lieing in.


You can dispense with the rolly eyed guy. I don't like Bush anymore than you do, but what you have provided is still deniable, do I think they were lying, hell yes. But it can easily be denied by saying "my advisors informed me they found biological laboratories, but after further investigation, they determined they were not, I jumped the gun a bit on the announcement, sorry". You see, while I'm sure he knew full well they didn't, I have no proof other than what I know in my soul, but that's not court admissable. Undeniable proof would be something that physically proves he gave the directive to lie, not just that we all know he is. Every piece of evidence you have provided can be denied. Just like George Costanza said on Seinfeld, "it's not a lie, if you believe it". It was much funnier when he said it though.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I feel sorry for those of you who think the invasion was about WMD. That was the excuse and man most of you fell for it hook, line & sinker, just like they knew you would. Answer me this...with regard to the intelligence about Saddam acquiring yellow cake uranium...why did Bush, in his State of the Onion speech in January 03, say that the intelligence came from Britain? It was clearly CIA intelligence which Joseph Wilson had been sent to investigate and completely refuted.

They passed the lie on anyway! But they had to use Britain to make the lie sound more credible to the American people. Got to hand it to them because it worked.

They're all in on it.

I just hope one day they'll be made to pay...well...I can hope can't I???



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
what you have provided is still deniable, do I think they were lying, hell yes. But it can easily be denied by saying "my advisors informed me they found biological laboratories, but after further investigation, they determined they were not, I jumped the gun a bit on the announcement, sorry".


What I have provided as proof cannot be ruduced to a mere lack of insight. It is the presidents job to tell the truth. If he says we found WMD, and then turns around and later says we didnt, then he lied. Period. No advisors, no staff. He lied and is continuing to lie to us. The proof is in his own words. Bush spoke every quote I posted of him. How can you deny his own words? Bush said one statement, and then goes on to say another statement. That is a lie. Any reasons for doing so is just an excuse to make his lie be more palitable for mass digestion. It is only deniable if we let him get away with it.

[edit on 1/28/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Unfortunatly, although the world knows It was a crock of crap, american soldiers and Patriots still beleive it, hook line and sinker. Very sad indeed.
Its almost funny to hear them spout about about what a great job they are doing in iraq, and whine about how almost nobody agrees, including the media. Poor deluded souls. The ship of fools will run aground, its a matter of time.


But undeniable proof of Bush lying, would be perhaps some sort of documentation or memo from the Bush administration to intel agencies specifically ordering them to fabricate information in order to accuse Saddam of wrong doings. You know, stuff that holds up in court


oh that will come out in time, maybe years from now. Similar documents have emerged from previous administrations, I posted an early one on this board somewhere that I was rather shocked to find online. It blatantly asked its cheif of staff or something, to come up with a plausible series of events to justify invasion. Something to do with the cuban missile crisis I think someone said.

[edit on 083131p://25018 by instar]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
The ship of fools will run aground, its a matter of time.


Unfortunatly, as long as that ship is packed full of unwitting sailors, it will keep floating indefinatly. The problem that Bush's dishonesty brings to the table is a widening rift in America due to his cult like supporters. When you worship someone as if they are God, it is hard to see them for what they really are.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Could not have said it better Kidfinger !



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Dr Horacid-

You like being lied to?


I dont care how much the world said there were weapons of mass destruction, it all boils down to this; The president of this country, the free world, the most important man in the world, our comander in chief, relied on bad foreign intelligence to invade a country. He did this because the "bad intelligence" suited his fondest desires to start a war. The information suited his purposes very nicely. Dont rely on your OWN intelligence, rely on others intelligence if it suits your purposes.

Can you honestly tell me you being an intelligent person beleives what you posted??

Bush had no purpose after he stole the presidency the first time other than to start a war....What a lucky man he is..along comes 9/11...I swear his luck is incredible.


still love you, though, DrHoracid



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
if B jr. isn't lying..then he has the most inept administration there has ever been. which is better??.....

to have that much "bad intel" on such a huge scale and for so long??? come on..........

verifable proof that B jr. lied.....like , what..tapes of B Jr. and the gang sitting around the oval office drinking beer talking about how they are gunna change the facts so it wont be a lie?? or maybe something like intel reports that say the opposite of what B Jr. said/has said.......aren't those reports already out there???? so i guess the only way some will accept the fact that B Jr. and the gang lied or misrepresented the facts or knowingly interpreted the facts in an unethical way,.... would be for B Jr. to actually say..."I Lied"

people think that politics runs just like your personnel interaction with other people.......but when millions of $$ are at stake and world influence is at stake and and there are many others who work with you that have the same things at stake.........your gunna lie to keep what you have and to gain more of what you have and want........did I say "lie"......oh.. I meant getting "bad intell" all the time.




posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind

people think that politics runs just like your personnel interaction with other people.......but when millions of $$ are at stake and world influence is at stake and and there are many others who work with you that have the same things at stake.........your gunna lie to keep what you have and to gain more of what you have and want........did I say "lie"......oh.. I meant getting "bad intell" all the time.



Exactly! The 'bad intell' is nothing more than a crutch to blame his lies on. Bush never recieved bad intell from the CIA. He knew the truth when we went into Iraq, he just told us something different, I.E. a lie.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Unfortunatly, although the world knows It was a crock of crap, american soldiers and Patriots still beleive it, hook line and sinker. Very sad indeed.
Its almost funny to hear them spout about about what a great job they are doing in iraq, and whine about how almost nobody agrees, including the media. Poor deluded souls. The ship of fools will run aground, its a matter of time.


But undeniable proof of Bush lying, would be perhaps some sort of documentation or memo from the Bush administration to intel agencies specifically ordering them to fabricate information in order to accuse Saddam of wrong doings. You know, stuff that holds up in court


oh that will come out in time, maybe years from now. Similar documents have emerged from previous administrations, I posted an early one on this board somewhere that I was rather shocked to find online. It blatantly asked its cheif of staff or something, to come up with a plausible series of events to justify invasion. Something to do with the cuban missile crisis I think someone said.


I hope you don't include me in those who believe it hook line and sinker. Because like I've said several times, I don't. It seems like just because I don't think this proof is "undeniable", you guys think I'm some patriotic Bush lover. When in fact, as I've said, I'm with you. But just because I don't fit the exact mold of every other Bush hater, I'm cast aside as a supporter of Bush. You're kidding, right? Nobody can see that proof of something and just knowing are two different things. Instar, do think what has been presented here is "undeniable" proof? If you were a judge, would you convict somebody of intentionally decieving becasue they say one thing one day, and another the next? Without absolute proof that it was intentional? Hopefully one day the evidence does surface, that would be a great day for us all, but it hasn't yet. I'm with you, I'm sure it will, but it hasn't yet. That's all I'm saying.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

I hope you don't include me in those who believe it hook line and sinker. Because like I've said several times, I don't. It seems like just because I don't think this proof is "undeniable", you guys think I'm some patriotic Bush lover. When in fact, as I've said, I'm with you. But just because I don't fit the exact mold of every other Bush hater, I'm cast aside as a supporter of Bush. You're kidding, right? Nobody can see that proof of something and just knowing are two different things. Instar, do think what has been presented here is "undeniable" proof? If you were a judge, would you convict somebody of intentionally decieving becasue they say one thing one day, and another the next? Without absolute proof that it was intentional? Hopefully one day the evidence does surface, that would be a great day for us all, but it hasn't yet. I'm with you, I'm sure it will, but it hasn't yet. That's all I'm saying.


No one is accusing you of being a Bush supporter. I have not said that, and niether did anyone else. However, how can you overlook the words he has spoke? I have presented example after example of how Bush has lied to us. He said we found WMD in Iraq, then he said we didnt find them. This is just one of the many examples I provided. These words were spoken by Bush. One of these statements is a lie. If you argue that he had bad intell, I say he did not and it becomes an argument of symantics. And the symantics is what Bush wants you to pay attention to, not the lie itself.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
27d....how do you feel...deep down in your gut. If your gut tells you its a lie...

I always trust my gut...



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I'm a little late on this one, but I get a kick out of how the liberals (and no, I'm not conservative...I'm more "middle-of-the-road") tend to forget all the Democrats who agreed with Bush at the beginning. How many times was John Kerry quoted saying "Saddam has WMD's" and "We need to remove Sadam" etc...and it wasn't just Kerry. There was overwhelming support for this by both parties at the beginning, but once it was found there were no WMD's there, the Liberals started crying foul.

so before you come out and say Bush is a liar, you better be prepared to call EVERYONE who supported this a liar.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
No one is accusing you of being a Bush supporter. I have not said that, and niether did anyone else. However, how can you overlook the words he has spoke? I have presented example after example of how Bush has lied to us. He said we found WMD in Iraq, then he said we didnt find them. This is just one of the many examples I provided. These words were spoken by Bush. One of these statements is a lie. If you argue that he had bad intell, I say he did not and it becomes an argument of symantics. And the symantics is what Bush wants you to pay attention to, not the lie itself.


I DON'T argue it was bad intel. I just said that's what they can say to deny it, that's all. That's why I say it's not undeniable. That's all I'm saying. I see your point, and we all know he lied in our hearts. But that can't get an impeachment.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
I'm a little late on this one, but I get a kick out of how the liberals (and no, I'm not conservative...I'm more "middle-of-the-road") tend to forget all the Democrats who agreed with Bush at the beginning. How many times was John Kerry quoted saying "Saddam has WMD's" and "We need to remove Sadam" etc...and it wasn't just Kerry. There was overwhelming support for this by both parties at the beginning, but once it was found there were no WMD's there, the Liberals started crying foul.

so before you come out and say Bush is a liar, you better be prepared to call EVERYONE who supported this a liar.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kerry et al just supporting their president when told of "gathering threats" and that Saddam had WMD?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
27d....how do you feel...deep down in your gut. If your gut tells you its a lie...

I always trust my gut...


You know the answer to that question. But gut feelings don't hold up in court.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
I'm a little late on this one, but I get a kick out of how the liberals (and no, I'm not conservative...I'm more "middle-of-the-road") tend to forget all the Democrats who agreed with Bush at the beginning. How many times was John Kerry quoted saying "Saddam has WMD's" and "We need to remove Sadam" etc...and it wasn't just Kerry. There was overwhelming support for this by both parties at the beginning, but once it was found there were no WMD's there, the Liberals started crying foul.

so before you come out and say Bush is a liar, you better be prepared to call EVERYONE who supported this a liar.


This argument is stale.

EVERYONE BACKED BUSH AFTER 9-11! Of course we did! Our country had just endured a major attack and we were letting him lead us because we all hoped he would do the right thing. Yes, we ALL agreed with him. However, after his falicies came to light, the support began to wane. It has finally gotten to where half of us cn see him for the lieing idiot he truly is.

[edit on 1/28/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Some might call that lying. I am here today to accuse President George Bush of doing just this very thing.




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]




Ok, now granted it is hard not to think the he has alternative motives. BUT on this statement I have to object. One of my family members helped load several barrels of chemical weapons onto UN vehicles. THe stockpiles were found BUT they were labeled "stay away do not use...weapon of mass distruction". According to UN guidelines if it is labeled it cannot be concidered.

So, even though I admit that you cant help but question what he says, I also admit that there is more going on that not even he can controll.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join