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.

 

Why is George W. Bush really the President?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   
If you knew the future and it was bad, wouldn’t you prepare?

We all know that W’s father George Bush Sr. is a very well connected man and is still actively involved in the political community. He is a former President and CIA Director among other things and still gets daily CIA briefings anywhere he goes.
edition.cnn.com...

The CIA employs a very diverse population of people worldwide. IMO, a small group of these people must possess psychic and clairvoyant characteristics. The CIA even set up a research institute at Stanford University to study this.
www.calder.net...

If these special people could have predicted such events as 9/11, War in Afghanistan, Gulf Wars and an increasing instability in the world that would occur after the 2000 election what would they do. The President of the United States would be in a very powerful position to constitute worldwide change good or bad. If George Bush Sr. had access to this future information at any point in his life would he use it for his benefit?

It seems evident that something has influenced George W. Bush’s Presidency. There is no denying that some strings have been pulled. Look at the 2000 election. I mean gosh that should be enough. It was one of the closest elections in history. Gore won the popular vote. But Bush won the electoral vote, eventually. Florida couldn’t make up its mind (brother Jebs State).

Now if you knew that the United States would be presented with very difficult and political times in the coming future, and you knew what they were, would you make sure that the right people were in place to deal with it? I know I would. Look at Bush’s Powerhouse cabinet when he first came into office. And don’t get me wrong, I voted for Bush and support him 100%. How different do you think our country would be today if Al Gore had been president through some of our countries most difficult times? I just think there is a reason Bush’s was elected in 2000 and why he remains today. The Bush’s know whats really going on, I’m quite certain, and that why he has my vote.

What do you all think?

(Please correct me if I’m wrong)


[edit on 15-2-2005 by Event Horizon]

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Event Horizon]




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
George W. Bush Is President Because A Majority Of Americans Voted For Him

That's it.

So far, I haven't seen anything credible to suggest otherwise, just a lot of unsubstantiated innuendo supported only by hand-waving and insults directed at anyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid.

Entertain whatever fantasies you want, Bush is president because Americans elected him.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Event Horizon

It seems evident that something has influenced George W. Bush’s Presidency. There is no denying that some strings have been pulled. Look at the 2000 election. I mean gosh that should be enough. It was one of the closest elections in history. Gore won the popular vote. But Bush won the electoral vote, eventually. Florida couldn’t make up its mind (brother Jebs State).



And what, pray tell, does the fact that the election was decided by the florida vote show, in terms of 'strings being pulled'? Don't get me wrong, I do mostly agree with what you're saying here, but just because Jeb Bush is the brother of the man who won the election, doesn't mean that he automatically would them pull strings - the worst isn't always true about people.

Other than that though, I agree with you that it was probably better for the country to have Bush in power during the hard times that America went through - as far as my personal feelings go - I'm sure many others woiuld think he's the worst thing to have happened to the planet.

But personally, while I don't think that President Gore would have acted too differently (I think that we'd be in Iraq regardless, for instance), for me personally, President Bush seems to either have some kind of influence over how the country feels on morality and leadership, or he represents what most of the country feels on that. Either way, I like what he stands for...don't think that a President Gore would have been that different in terms of policy...but just the personalities are very different.

I have to agree with Majic. He IS president because the majority of the people voted for him (and please don't rip my head off over this, people). If you're religious, I guess it's obviously God's will, but that's kinda personal, so I guess that it would be a bit risky for people to discuss that. Trust me man, it can only go into a flame war of extreme right wingers and extreme lefters.

Cheers,
Archangel



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Ditto Majic's post.

W had the most $$$ in his war chest so he beat all the
other Republican runners in 2000. He then won the
electoral vote in 2000. He then won both the electoral
and popular vote in 2004, mostly because the Dems put
John Kerry up as their 'best' (and he wasn't).

That's why he's president.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
He was duly elected in both 2000 and 2004 in accordance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I think the literalist critics quick to jump on any opportunity to "Bush Bully" may have missed the authors points buried in all those annoying words.

Not to mention this...


Originally posted by Event Horizon
And don’t get me wrong, I voted for Bush and support him 100%.


So once we get past the idea that it's not a Bush bashing thread, we may find a thrust of inquiry even more interesting than politics.

Shades of exploring a paranormal predictions element or time travel or alien contact conspiracy within government to keep "those in the know" in power and "those not" out perhaps? I'm asking. (As I have my own.)


If the author would prefer the theory to be in a different forum to explore those possiblities with an open mind, let me know. Though it would certainly still be considered a "political conspiracy" and could remain. We just need to get past the partisanship and defensive attitides to explore it.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Bush won because the Dems are running for '08, not '04. Had Kerry won, then he and not Hillary would have run again in '08. That's why the Dems picked him, because he had a good chance of not winning.....he was far from their best candidate.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Event Horizon
Now if you knew that the United States would be presented with very difficult and political times in the coming future, and you knew what they were, would you make sure that the right people were in place to deal with it? I know I would. Look at Bush’s Powerhouse cabinet when he first came into office. And don’t get me wrong, I voted for Bush and support him 100%. How different do you think our country would be today if Al Gore had been president through some of our countries most difficult times? I just think there is a reason Bush’s was elected in 2000 and why he remains today. The Bush’s know whats really going on, I’m quite certain, and that why he has my vote.

What do you all think?


I think that you are on to something, and while I don't have the answers, I just read a fascinating book, "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at The End of the Age of Oil", by Michael Ruppert, which suggests a possible reason for Bush & Co. to be in power (especially Dick Cheney)--and government corruption & conspiracy on both sides of the aisle. I am still digesting his theory and as with all suggestions of conspiracy, they should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism and be backed up with your own research, but you are not alone in feeling that something isn't "right."

You can find out more about Ruppert from his site, www.fromthewilderness.com, and the links below, which include an excerpted chapter from "Crossing the Rubicon" and a high-level summary of his theory from a lecture that he gave to the venerable Commonwealth Club. There has also been quite a bit of discussion about Ruppert and the controversy surrounding him on ATS--you can just do a search to find some of the threads.

www.fromthewilderness.com...
media.globalpublicmedia.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
he is president becasue he won 2 elections. not even half of us voted, why does it seem hard to swallow?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
He is still the president because his Daddy have some powerful people that help make sure that he will be the president.


It's called, Money, Corruption, Power, buy anything.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
.....both Republicans & Democrats , the powerbrokers who run the parties & thus the country, are corrupt.
Both groups are run by disconnected millionaires who don't give a damn about any issues unless it solidifies power and/or profit.
Take the circumstances of THEFT 2000 and the voter manipulation of 2004, and place that in any other 1st world country - a completely different reaction would ensue from that country's "Democrats" in both situations. Here? Compliance with enough feigned indignation to be passable.

That being said, both parties have the same paymasters, Corporate America. Republicans are less modest about it, that's the only difference. This is the natural progession, the evolution, of corporate control of a country....this administration installed a "Board Room to War Room" head in every single department of the executive branch. The Congress mirrors that as well.

Just get set for "OCP" to own a city or two outright. ( If you think I'm kidding, it's already happened....look up Alcoa )



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I knew people were going to respond with the obvious.
I just wanted to entertain the idea that something may be going on. I wasnt sure which forum to put it in... this one seemed the most logical. I am not a Bush hater despite what you may think. I just know that something is not right.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I think the reasons people are not following that train of thought are simple:

- it assumes altruism on the Bush clan's part. They have insights into the future and are shepparding us to salvation.....I'm not buying that in the least.

- it's too obvious a corporate coup. This presidency was enabled by corporate money, the shady portions are kept out of the corporate news cycles, and the ultimate benefactors are corporations.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I think the literalist critics quick to jump on any opportunity to "Bush Bully" may have missed the authors points buried in all those annoying words.



It is evident that the issue is not so much one of "literalism" but of the short attention span.

People at ATS once had the courtesy to read posts, analyze the content and present arguments, pro and con, in a substantive way.

The evidence here is that as for much of the process of disenfranchising from the machinery of government and any form of understanding, the soundbite is king and people dutifully respond as automatons in these matters.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Bush is the prez because his family is one of the biggest crime families ever. They're all dirty, even the brothers that hardly anyone hears about.

If the 2000 vote was fair, how come 1 MILLION people were disenfranchised in that election? Oh, and most of these people were the poor working class or minorities. Deny it if you want, that is public.

In 2004, they were set to steal another one. Does Diebold ring a bell? How come people can't have receipts that show who they really voted for? Many people complained that their votes for Kerry mysteriously transformed into Bush votes on the screen. But, that didn't matter. They didn't have to for 2 main reasons:

1. Kerry decided to take a dive at the last minute. He didn't challenge the results until AFTER other groups did so.

2. The American public has been so dumbed down and brainwashed by the fake War on Terror (a subject for another thread) that a significant number of people actually did vote for Bush.

Look, Kerry would have really won the election. Even the exit polls showed he was ahead. But, it was planned for him not to. Think not? The fact that both of them are Skull and Bones is just the tip of the iceberg.

You Bush supporters must love the state that our country is in. Open borders. Mass layoffs. Cameras everywhere. Torture has become a good thing. A seriously weakened dollar. The disappearance of the middle class. The attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Plans for microchips, massive toll road systems, tax by the mile. Tasers being used on children, old people, hell, everyone. I could go on and on.

Now don't dismiss me as a typical Bush hater. I base my feelings on old Chimp Face by the facts. And everything I have said here is documented; in fact, most of this info is public. Yet people still don't get it. Absolutely incredible.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
He is still the president because his Daddy have some powerful people that help make sure that he will be the president.


It's called, Money, Corruption, Power, buy anything.
What she said.
Some of us are still wondering "how"



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
im sorry but you are wrong. he is president becasuse he was voted for as i mentioned. WHY he was voted for is open for debate.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Bush won because the Dems are running for '08, not '04. Had Kerry won, then he and not Hillary would have run again in '08. That's why the Dems picked him, because he had a good chance of not winning.....he was far from their best candidate.


But who was the Dems best candidate? It really didn't matter the way i see it because none of them were really that good. I don't think any of them would have beat Bush anyway.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Nah. I guess it's still political regardless, but as to this idea...


Originally posted by Bout Time
I think the reasons people are not following that train of thought are simple:

- it assumes altruism on the Bush clan's part. They have insights into the future and are shepparding us to salvation.....I'm not buying that in the least.


Why would anyone with a glimpse of the future have to be altruistic as opposed to selfish, or for that matter not be necessarily demented? Remember if true, then they chose to allow 9/11 for some ulterior gain.

I share Event Horizon's feeling that "something is not right" but it's not Bush based (at least not based to this one). It started under Bush 41 around the fall of the Berlin Wall (but may have predated the "feeling" to the fall of Nixon). Followed by the identifiable billionare coup of Ross Perot to hand off the Presidency to Clinton. Then intensified when the Republicans didn't even try to run a serious contender in '96 effectively supporting Clinton for President (though immediately trying to take him down after). I think the "bad things" the PNAC needed then were supposed to happen under Clinton's second term, but didn't (for whatever reason). Competency perhaps? Then were ultimately allowed to happen in 2001 when the perfect patsy was in place that could be shielded from competants like Clarke and literally placed on camera for some perverted semblance of reasonable doubt via unreasonable incompetance. The fact though he could get re-elected... :shk: I don't think even they saw that coming. And that's where the vitriolic defense of same (as observed) comes into play. Whatever has happened, and whoever did it, and for whatever reason... they created a monster (by which I mean a ruling class of priests).

If this was all designed to "trade off" 9/11's (for example), as in trade one evil to spare us a larger... (meaning they only saw the alternative, not this) then we are truly flying blind at this point, if not indeed free falling.

Or we always were flying blind, and there's no excuse for the incompetence. I dont' know which alternative gives me less comfort.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
For anyone who is brand new to the issue of how the 2004 election came to be corrupt and fraudulent in the electoral process itself (quite separately from the machinery of lies and diversions and terrorism from the Bush administration), this article from yesterday is useful:

www.inthesetimes.com...

February 15, 2005
A Corrupted Election
Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right
By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf



Recall the Election Day exit polls that suggested John Kerry had won a convincing victory? The media readily dismissed those polls and little has been heard about them since.

Many Americans, however, were suspicious. Although President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes in the official, tallied vote count, exit polls had projected a margin of victory of 5 million votes for Kerry. This unexplained 8 million vote discrepancy between the election night exit polls and the official count should raise a Chinese May Day of red flags...

(The explanations are in some depth and the " 20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA" are priceless.)

The standard responses to questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process from ATS members who are not hear to question, are partisan things like "You lost. Get over it." and "51% of Americans voted for Bush so Bush is right". In other words, it's all very circular and only a few people want to get a grip on the issues.

There have been dozens of topics about election fraud and voting machine fraud and the orchestration of fraud through intimidation and dismissal of legitimate voters, too, at ATS. U2U if you want MA's recommendations of some to check out.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join