It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Where is thy evidence against Bush???

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:05 AM
Its obvious how brainwashed you are.

'' terrorisits ''

There in there HOMELAND Defending against a foreign invader who's STILL TO THIS DAY murdering and destroying.

How is that a terrorist.
because he doesnt agree with the invaders thoughts.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:09 AM
HOW is it ignorance..


Your standing up for whats happening?
Even tho it has been proven ILLEGIAL..

Arent you the ignorant one?

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:39 AM
How about this? This is some serious classified material,

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:56 AM
First, I don't know why people still try to draw comparisons to Bush and Clinton. That is the most circular argument that has been made in the last 20 years. It's totally arbitrary. Why not compare Bush to Jessica Simpson or some equally ineffectual prop?

I think the only comparison that needs to be drawn between the two is that, as presidents, neither are all that hot.

Personally, I don't think G.W. Bush was nearly qualified enough to take the office of POTUS in the first place. Every endeavor in his life has equalled nothing more than mediocrity, and in some cases total failure.

In business, he has failed repeatedly and had to be bailed out by his buddies in the Saudi Arabian construction industry, or Bandar Bush himself. In sports, well... he TRADED SAMMY SOSA, and wasted a bunch of TAXPAYERS MONEY on a new baseball field for a team that he GROSSLY MISMICROMANAGED and ran into the ground.

In college, I don't know what he was doing, but it obviously wasn't studying or learning. I wouldn't be suprised to find that he just hit up his lovely counterparts on his CHEERLEADING SQUAD to complete his homework for him.

Afghanistan was a no-brainer. No president with a semi-capable cabinet could have screwed that up.

But as for Iraq...

Bumble after bumble after bumble.

First, convincing a people and their Congress that there was a war to be made on the basis of shaky evidence and hearsay was a major mistake.

Second, he jumped the gun. I think he seriously believed that after three weeks of major combat operations Iraq was going to embrace democracy as if it were something Iraqis had been waiting for a major government to 'install' for decades.

Then, after Saddam was finally captured and he told us everything would change, we took more casualties in a three month period than we had the entire time previous. Just gross miscalculations on his part and on the part of Rumsfeld.

The first indicator for me that Iraq was going to be rife with small, consistent failings was the fact that Colin Powell, the only member of the cabinet with any real military knowledge and/or experience, told us all that it would be a VERY BAD IDEA to go into Iraq too hastily.

They shut him up really quick, didn't they? Yes, yes they did...

What really pisses me off about Bush and Rumsfeld is that neither of them have the humility and common decency to admit where they goofed. Two hundred and fifty BILLION dollars later, we are left with a legacy of debt, less security in the homeland, and little difinitive action for the short, mid, or long term future.

Had we taken that same $250 billion and done a good job of securing our borders and ports, we wouldn't have had 3 million new illegal immigrants in the year 2004. And what the HELL was that stupid thing Bush said about granting IMMUNITY AND CITIZENSHIP to the over 6 million illegal mexican immigrants that now reside in the USA.

Notice that you heard something about that in the news for about 3 days, and then nothing..... Why? BECAUSE THAT WAS A REALLY BAD IDEA AND A REALLY STUPID THING TO SAY!!!

Which brings me to my next point. What the HELL is that guy talking about. MBA from Harvard, and the guy comes up with THESE gems:








I mean, what the HELL is this guy talking about? There has not been one public speaking engagement in which Bush has not said something completely random or just plain STUPID.

Unqualified, unsatisfactory, and exactly what the people voted for.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:56 AM
Bush-bin Laden

Interestingly, it was John Kerry who decided not to indict the Bushes in the BCCI terror funding scandal." target="_blank" class="postlink">

Makes one wonder if this isn't merely some divide and conquer strategem.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:04 AM
The Bush clans have been criminals from the get go, and right now they are doing as they have always done. Here are some links about the Bushies

Bush Family Machinations, 1918-2000

1937 Prescott Bush's investment firm sets up deal for the Luftwaffe so it can obtain tetraethyl lead.

1963 John F. Kennedy is assassinated. Internal FBI memo reports that on November 22 "reputable businessman" George H. W. Bush reported hearsay that a certain Young Republican "has been talking of killing the president when he comes to Houston." The Young Republican was nowhere near Dallas on that date.

1980 Bush becomes Reagan's vice presidential candidate. Runs as a right-winger again.
Mosbacher becomes chief fundraiser for Bush's presidential campaign. Forms a millionaire's club of 250 contributors, each of whom cough up $100,000.
William Casey forms a working group to prepare for possible Carter October political surprise. In early October, an Iranian official meets with three top Reagan campaign aides. All three deny memory of the meeting in subsequent proceedings.

1981 Reagan-Bush inaugurated. Hostages released moments before. Shortly thereafter, arms shipments to Iran resume from Israel and America. In July, an Argentinean plane chartered by Israel crashes in Soviet territory. It is found to have made three deliveries of American military supplies to Iran. In a 1991 story in Esquire, Craig Unger quotes Alexander Haig as saying "I have a sneaking suspicion that someone in the White House winked." Says Unger: "This secret and illegal sale of military equipment continued for years afterwards."
James Baker named Reagan's chief of staff.
SEC filings for Zapata Oil for 1960-66 are found to have been "inadvertently destroyed."

Reagan authorizes CIA assistance to Contras.

George W. Bush is asked by Carlyle Group to serve on the board of directors of Caterair, one of the nation's largest airline catering services which it had acquired in 1989. The offer is arranged by Fred Malek, long time Bush associate who is then an advisor to Carlyle.

2001 Bush is sworn in as president and Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense under Poppy, is sworn in as vice-president. Numerous key members of the Regan-Bush and Bush-Quayle administrations, including those who left under a Contra cloud, are brought back into the new administration.

With Bush as front man and Cheney as the brains behind the throne, Bush begins to consolidate power with fast-track plans to weaken government regulations of corporations, begin drilling on previously out of bounds environmentally fragile sites, place greater world trade powers in the White House, establish formal governmental funding of religions, allow greater civil rights discrimination in the name of freedom.

Shift more of the nation's wealth away from the middle class and into the hands of the wealthy through changes in the tax laws, further establish military dominance in the world and in space through missile defense, and weaken international compacts protecting the environment and controlling small arms.
79 year old Andrew Marshall, a colleague of Herman "Dr. Strangelove" Kahn at the Rand think tank in the 50's appointed head of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment and major speechwriter of Bush's Missle Defense System speeches.
Taking a cue from the Bush Administration, Japan deals with Iran to provide oil field studies, indicating that the Clinton Sanctions Act will no longer be enforced against Iran.

The Draheim Report
by Richard N. Draheim, Jr

Why has Presidential candidate George W. Bush been able to raise uncounted tens of millions of dollars? It can't be because of his positions on the issues; he has scrupulously avoided taking many.

It can't be because of his knowledge of world events; he thinks being asked such questions is a trick." (He will embarrassingly lie, saying that he knows the answer to a question, and half a sentence later admit that he doesn't.)

No, George "I'm No Longer Drunk" Bush's support is because the Bush family fortune is old, and it's big, and comes from a century old alliance with the most powerful interests on Wall Street and in industry.

Worse, part of Dub-a-Ya's money comes from grandfather Prescott Bush's financial alliance with the Nazis.
The Draheim Report

George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography

The House of Bush: Born in a Bank

Bush Family Values Photo Album

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Makes one wonder if this isn't merely some divide and conquer strategem.

Makes one wonder, or makes one suspicious?

Why, after Bush, does anyone even believe that the President of the United States of America is nothing more than a prop anyway?

What we need is a REAL LEADER with REAL LEADERSHIP ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE. Not a person who will guarantee defense industry and other government contractors that now that there is a Republican in office, they will be getting their Christmas bonuses again.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:25 AM
Some of you realy amaze me,

Justify iraq?

HELP THOSE WHO CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES.. I guess that doesnt mean anything these days.

Torture methods in Iraq:

1.Medical experimentation
4.Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
5.Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife
6.Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
7.Branding with a hot iron
8.Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
9.Pouring boiling water into a rectum
10.Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
11.Extracting teeth with pliers
12.Using bees and scorpionsto sting naked children infront of their parents

Im sure one of you liberals have pics of this stuff right? you seem to have all the latest pics on what those evil american soldiers have done...

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:25 AM
How about this incriminating evidence!

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
In business, he has failed repeatedly and had to be bailed out by his buddies in the Saudi Arabian construction industry, or Bandar Bush himself. In sports, well... he TRADED SAMMY SOSA, and wasted a bunch of TAXPAYERS MONEY on a new baseball field for a team that he GROSSLY MISMICROMANAGED and ran into the ground.

I disagree. Bush's oil adventure Arbusto, which means "shrub" (not Bush) in Spanish, was a success. According to President Bush the investors, "...mainly friends of my uncle...did pretty good." Arbusto became Bush Exploration, when his dad was Vice President, and then BE merged with Spectrum 7, and in 86, Spectrum merged with Harken (and no, they never successfully tapped oil, but who cares when you have stock?).

Two months before Iraq invaded Kuwait, on June 20, 1990, Bush Jr., our CINC, sold two-thirds of his Harken stock, 212,140 shares at $4 a share-for a total of $848,560. So really he did pretty good seeing that the company collapsed eight days later.

And the Rangers? Bush made millions upon millions from that deal. So how did he fail in business? I don't think you're looking at this from an ROI point of view.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by vincere7
And the Rangers? Bush made millions upon millions from that deal. So how did he fail in business? I don't think you're looking at this from an ROI point of view.

This is what I mean. Return on investment, to me, is not a consideration when you suck the life out of the very entity that made the return possible. What about the fans? What about the future of the ball club. He left them in ruin. He didn't make millions on the ball club, he made millions on the STADIUM, and then left the bill to the fans. That stadium is mostly public property, being used as a big billboard by companies who invested in nothing but the opportunity to advertise. No, they did NOT pay for any of the concrete or steel. Just the idea.

The return on investment, here again, was mainly gained by an exploitation of the people for their venture capital, on which they to this day pay interest. Just careless, bad business.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by C0le
Some of you realy amaze me,

Justify iraq?

HELP THOSE WHO CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES.. I guess that doesnt mean anything these days.

Torture methods in Iraq:............................

Sure Cole, but by this do you mean that we should go into Yemen for cutting the clitori off young girls? Should we go take over China because of their appalling human rights violations? What about many of the countries of Africa who's governments are constantly engaged in horrible acts.

Tell me, was it for the reasons you listed the TRUE reason why it was so important for us to go to Iraq with such haste and abandon? Or was there something else.

You try to make it sound like anyone who has any qualms whatsoever about this war are hedonistic, baby-killing, friends of Satan who would love nothing more than to see all the world fall into a state of total debauchery.

The numerous points I've made about why it was a bad idea politically, economically, and morally to go into Iraq at that particular time and in that particular manner overshadow the one measly point you had to make. And that one is completely obvious for anyone to know. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy. He was a bad guy when he was trained and employed by our own CIA. What, my dear friend, IS the point?

So what then? Where's the next stop? If we're really concerned about the treatment of people by their governments, should we stop in North Korea or the Sudan next.

Tell you what pal, if there ain't no money in it for US, we're not really concerned about how governments treat their people. The point about Saddams horrible treatment of political dissidents and adulterers was only used as an afterthought by Bush himself. He couldn't build a coalition of the willing based on a poor human rights record, hell, he couldn't even get anyone to do anything about is UN violations. He could never sell that point to the people or congress as a reason for war. He had to resort to using intelligence reports that were contrived by some since unaccountable source, namely Tony Blair. Maybe that was because the US and Israel have broken more UN rules in the past 50 years than the rest of the world combined? Hmm....

Why don't you go dig a little deeper into the issue, instead of clinging to the failing notion that conservatism for conservatism's sake absolves you of being responsible for the situations which our elected leaders create for us.

And that goes for you self-blinding, self-serving, self-important uber liberals as well. You can't feed everyone with nothing.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:54 AM
Where is thy evidence FOR Bush???

Well I would really love to see the evidence for Bush also.

Like the 9-11 situation: show us the evidence that OBL was behind the attacks.

Give us the evidence that Pentagon was really hit with an airplane.

Give us the evidence that two airplanes really demolished the Twin Towers.

Give us the evidence that the people of Afganistan were guilty for the 9-11 attacks.

Give us the evidence that Al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam and that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Give us Something!

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:24 PM
You have voted GlobalDisorder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I had thought up my angle on this subject prepared to hit 'reply', but you've done a fine job my friend in explaing what i had to say!

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:32 PM
Hello and welcome, to Liberal Politricks 101. Our first lesson deals with the refutation stage of political debate. Lesson one: When faced with an absence of supporting evidence, turn the quetion around on the asker.

e.g "Facts against Bush?? well.....welll.....Where're your facts? Ha!"

I honestly don't know where to start with this response, there're so many pro-bush and anti-Bush threads I think the liberals are going to beat me through sheer exhaustion. In an effort to stay out of the mudslinging I'd like to point out that the whole purpose for this thread was for anti-Bushers to post any and all legitmat sources of evidence. Possibly in the hopes of converting those of a differing or indifferent mindset. However, yet again, the anit-Bushers fail to see where their opinions are not defined as facts. I believe what the original poster intended, and I'd have to agree, is that he'd like to see the supporting evidence of these liberal theories. I like to think of myself as a fair person and I would take into context any facts supporting views eitherway. There seems to be a complete lack of evidence for any of the seperationsit theories of the anti-bushers.

Now, in response to the myriad posts. I'd like to propose a question to all those that say Bush lied about the WMD (god am I sick of hearing that word). If Bush truly lied about the war in Iraq, then why did he not just place missles or warheads wherever he would need them? It seems to be to be a pretty easy solution, especially to someone who thinks "americans are idiots". Would it have not been a major victory for the Bush administration to suddenly show up on tv one day and say "Guess what people, we've found those pesky WMDs!"

In response to the death toll from the Iraq war I'd like to reference you to the body count of ALMOST EVERY OTHER WAR.

Saying Saddam was not a threat is like saying Hitler wasn't a threat to anyone before he invaded Poland.

Clinton didn't go on trial for fellatio, he went on trial for fund raising scandals and then again for perjury. I'd agree in part, i think he should've gone on trial for the horrible handling of Mogadeeshu.

Ok, I'm really trying to stay out of the mudslinging so let me digress slightly. This is America, created and goverened by Americans, I would really appreciate it if citizens of another country would keep their mouth shut when it comes to who and how I should vote. I would be even more grateful if people would stop arguing a moot point and start posting facts and trying to stay on top of those we put in power. Creating lies, whether pro or anti-Bush simply distracts us from following the actual policies put forth by members of either party. I'd like to reference somthing my dad had taught me a long time ago: "If there's money involved, someone is trying to screw you". That goes double for our government and OUR money. There're so many things we should worry about domestically, so many things that are in danger every single day, that we shouldn't waste time arguing over things 2, 3 or almost 8 years past. Buddhist dogma teaches that the past may as well not exist and if we're concerned for our future I'd tend to agree.

Now, my refutation to the stereotyping of Americans. I would fight to the death to protect my country here on the homefront. I would even go to another coutnry to fight if I saw fit, however, I happen to have a family to take care of and finding what's left of me in their mailbox would be a death sentence. I don't chew tobacco and I don't own a fire arm. I do, however, own a few items that could be considered in the self defense category. Maybe to you that makes me a stereotypical American, but as liberas are so oft to point out, I have rights, one of which is to protect myself and my family, i also have the right to think, speak, and vote as i see fit. If you want to get technical, if you are not an American, you have no rights over here, and no matter where you are you don't have the right to tell me that my opinions are any less than yours. Perhaps non-Americans have trouble understanding this fact, but the whole reason we have a 4 year term, 2 term max, decided by a majority vote is so that majority opinion rules and no one can declare themselves dictator of the states.

Now, all that being said, let's get that "Dark Days" band removed and work together for the ultimate goal of the truth. Which, consequently, I believe to be the main purpiose of this thread, perhaps it was slightly partisan, but when the first post asks for facts to back up claims, please do so. If you disagree with the primary poster then wouldn't that be all the more reason for you to post the pages and pages of facts you've been accumulating? If you want to argue then lets argue the validity of said "facts" for both sides, if you post facts siding one way or another, then in refutation someone will post opposing facts and therein lies the debate. When we sign out of ATS we are Americans, French, Germans, but when we're on this board we are ATSers and we are here to seek the truth. "Leave your troubles at the door, they're not oging anywhere"

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:17 PM
To Shadowflux: The whole where the beef is getting old. I do understand your point and do agree. The beef however is what isnt being reported. Im sure if I take the next few days off work I could find(not on the internet) government reports or congressonial reports showing the Iran/Contra or other central amercian crimes. If you truthy care just start reading Chomsky he has done a ton of work on this topic. Anyway, those in power do everything they can to make it hard to prove it. Hello would you call the police after pulling off a crime? Simple fact, if the government isnt forth coming with one small piece of a case on policy its a cover up. It maybe a small issue but it still a crime.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Shadowflux
This is America, created and goverened by Americans, I would really appreciate it if citizens of another country would keep their mouth shut when it comes to who and how I should vote.

lol. thats nice. Dont shut yourself off from the world or anything

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:28 PM
I still notice you Bush supporters haven't said a thing about his stance on open borders. Oh, my bad, it's a conspiracy theory that Bush doesn't want to close the borders...
Just like it's a conspiracy theory that Rumsfeld said Saddam had WMD...

Never mind all the other evidence provided by my like-minded people, just answer this one question for me. I bet you CANNOT answer it in a way that doesn't expose what's really going on! Come on, it's a simple question.

For you evidence seekers, why haven't you responded to our statements with intelligent answers? All I see is conspiracy this, liberal that. Actually, it's more fun that way; I love laughing at your informed responses.

Just answer this simple question first. Then, I'll ask you deeper stuff like the reason for the war games on 9/11...

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:38 AM

How was Saddam a threat before the war?
I know everyone says he was, and compares him to hitler before poland, but wat exactly was he threatening with ? His CRAPPola excuse for an army? that surrenderd within days? oo oo, those WMDS... nope turned out there wasnt a single one.

The only thing he was a threat too were his own citizens. And they have even found evidence saying His son was in the process of ousting him.

HE wasnt a threat, thats exactly why they went in. He had nothing to use against us apart from aging equipment and NONDedicated soilders.
Why do you think he opened his prisons months before the us invaded.. he knew the inmates, murderers, criminals would cause more headaches to the US that his own army.

ALSO Notice how the UN has ONLY become curropt since the US started saying soo?

The Un has done a damn fine job, Iraq never got WMD Again and the helped out in other world conflicts. To me the UN Needs to be inplace.

When the haluocaust happened there was no UN, now the USA has become the FIRST Country SINCE hitlers days to do soemthing on this scale.. invade another country.

The UN IS ONLY Curropt because they ARENT as curropt as the US Government And arent willing to join this ILLEGIAL War.

Illegial, because thats EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

Article 51 of the U.N. charter allows a state to take action in self defense. It doesn't allow you to invade somebody just because you want to invade them.

Which is exactly what the USA did.
They created a story, fed it to the public for breakfast lunch and tea, then went to war saying everyone agree'd with them.

Look at the list of coalition countries,
Apart from Britan, all the others are in desperate need of Financial/Trade help from the US. Free Trade Agreements, aid assistance, debt removed..

NONE Of them came into this fight simply because they though Saddam was a THREAT. they were bought bribed and threatend.

AS for the DEATH Tolll in IRAQ, compare it to other wars true true. ITs up there.
BUT COMPARE this to other wars..

What did IRAQ do to deserve this war apart from live there lives.
Other wars start because of political bicering, or because someone invades its neighbor.
IRAQ did nothing.

I am free to say WHAT I WANT about Americans and feel how I feel.
And any person in the world is FREE to say what they think and want about America, AMERICANS and their leader, because it is AMERICA, AMERICANS and there LEADER that has caused this WORLD CONFLICT, all because of one man's lies.

This war was always going to happen,
Dubya new this , his father instructed him!
HE had to come up with a scenario that could POSSIBLY be beleieved by the American Public for them to follow them into war.
AFter it starts it doesnt matter who agree's disagree's or protests, because the troops are already on the ground, and the key processs have already begun movement.

WMD was the ONLY believeable scenario because of Saddam's Past.
Ignorance is an American Citizen who after looking at the facts can still say without a hitch

' American was right in invading a soveriegn nation whom wasnt a threat '

This illegial war sux.

One last note.

Saddam is being tried amoungst many other things for
'' Invading another country WITHOUT provocation ''

So what is it called when the US does it ?

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:48 AM
Well, when peace breaks out in the Middle East (which may I remind you all the sparks of this democratic revolution are forming), you can all thank the U.S. for taking a stand against a world that was convinced it couldn't happen.

But hey, then again, Bush will be gone in 2 and half years, and then the world can hate on the next President. It seems the smaller kids always hate the bigger kids because of jealousy, eh?


posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:54 AM
Democracy in the Middleast.
DO YOU REALLY think anyone else is going to follow what has happened in IRAQ.

Even the citizens IN BAGHDAD say the streets, sewerage, Power, water situation is worse than it EVER Was under Saddam.

Look at the destruction, Death and DEVISTATION caused when you try and RAM Democracy down a country that doesnt want it.

Ask the cabinet members of Iraq, how SAFE they are.
Democracy WONT work in the middleeast becuase they have never been able to grasp the fundamentals of it.
There ancestors were taught the rough way of Governing, The CURRENT members were taught the same.

It will be funny to see which countries the US TRIES To jam democracy down first..
I reackon it'll prolly look similar to ' 1-10 of worls largest oil countries '

Why arent the US ousting Mugabe ?
HE clearly won the election by threatening and CHEATING.

Ahh there it is.. thats why bush wont oust him.. HE won by cheating as well.

Seems Democracy is only going to work on OIL Countries eh ?

People dont just hate the PRESIDENT because he's PRESIDENT..
They hate him because of what he's doing.
OR Cant you grasp that?

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in