Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If you had one word to describe President Bush.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
JJ, I would buy you a beer if I could.


Well, I just held up a liquor store and took a 40, so if you could mail them a check, that'd be great



The bottom line is, Bush is the president, he set this in motion. See: 16 words in State of Union address.

That is an impeachable offense.

And remember, Clinton got impeached for lying to a grand jury. The SoTU address is no different, legally. Ask Schippers.


I will, because that's the first time I've heard the SoTU compared to a grand jury testamony.

The 16 words you're referring to, I'm assuming, are these:


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


A few comments on this. If he believed it to be true, and intel pointed him to make that conclusion, even if it turned out to be false, would it be a lie?

I did look into it, too, and found an interesting article on FactCheck.org. They point out 4 points that show that Bush's statement was "well founded":


* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.


It appears the intel was wrong, although there's still a question based on Wilson's botched job in S. Africa. Then there's also the possibility it's just a nasty spin campaign on Wilson, but if it is they're being awfully specific and Wilson's not refuting it. So again, I have to ask, what constitutes a lie? If a character witness is called to the stand, sworn in, and explains that the defendant wouldn't be capable of murder, and yet it turns out they did, in fact, murder someone, did that defendant lie, and therefore should be prosecuted for perjury?




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
And p.s.

I don't believe for a minute Americans are that stupid.. Bush did NOT get re-elected. He got reSelected through vote fraud.

Thine eyes do not lie.. I have NEVER in 36 years of life seen SO many people turn out to vote! It was incredible. Mass numbers turned out - and those extra voters were NOT standing in line for HOURS to vote for Bush.

Be assured of that.


Oh I agree with you there for sure. As a Canadian watching the election results, I CRIED for my American friends. Not that I liked Kerry much...

He was selected for sure! Part of the game... And because people have not stood up and screamed at the top of their lungs about it, well, he might as well have won...

Its like a runaway train now and will continue until the people take back their government!



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

As to the people standing in line for hours not being there to vote for Bush, I have to disagree. Everyone felt that that election was of paramount importance. I know I did, and I tried to get as many people out to vote as I could. Our nation was (and is) at war, and in the midst of that war we were asked by our government to choose the person who would lead that war. We could choose the person who had been running the war so far, or we could choose someone else. The majority of Americans (people?
) who voted wanted to stay with the current leadership. They believed he was doing a good job, or else they thought the other guy would do a worse job.


Hi junglejake...
This is what I don't understand...these people took you to a war based on lies and deceit...with an agenda really having nothing to do with WMD. So instead of these people being punished, they are rewarded? To me this says that most people agree that the war was justified no matter what the cost in human lives, destruction of everything, money and so on. But we already knew at the time of the re-election that it was all lies. So the people that lied to you and got you into that mess are still the best ones to see you through the mess? I don't understand that logic. Then throw all the domestic issues that don't affect the rest of the world into the mix and you've really thrown me for a loop. To me, not only should they have got the boot but good, but they should all be in prison now.

Please help me to understand this phenomenon.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake


So did John Kerry. So did France, Russia, the UK, and Germany. The whole world seemed to believe he did, but Bush was the only one who went out and did something about it. He put his neck out on something he really believed to be true, and it got chopped because it wasn't true. The irony is the choppers were all saying the same thing he was, Saddam had WMDs, back before we invaded Iraq.


I think John Kerry (and Congress) believed what their President said....and that's the difference. After all, he wouldn't lie about such a serious thing, would he now???

The whole world did not believe that there were WMD because the inspectors were there and they weren't finding any. Most every country, including Canada wanted the proof they were there and the support of the UN Security Council before going in. Remember this - war should ALWAYS be the very last resort taken because the price paid, not just in money, is always too damned high. There was no need for this war...BushCO. just wanted the war because it fit in nicely with PNAC's agenda. The Iraq war idea had been floating around since soon after the first invasion. And why? Because Saddam wouldn't privatize the oil, even after it was thought that he had been sufficiently chastised after Iraq '91. That's why they allowed him to stay instead of getting rid of him then and there...



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
2000: "Al Gore got most of the popular vote! Bush stole the election by winning Florida!" (Final vote tally from 2000 is in, by the way, and Bush did win.)

2004: "Kerry won Ohio, Bush stole the election!"

Anyone see the irony?

Also, on the counts of this voter fraud, that everyone who was standing in line to vote must think like you did, because that's why you stood in line and your like minded friends stood in line for the exact reason. Where's the evidence? Is it just a gut feeling that, since you know Bush is the worst thing to happen to the world, everyone else must understand those facts? Or is it the polls? Was it because you were in on MoveOn's plan to disrupt republican voting in Ohio by harrassing anyone who came to get free coffee at their table if they found out you were voting Bush, to the point where they were moving cars to block Bush voters in the parking lot? Or maybe it was because the Kerry campaign somehow failed in their plan to call registered Republicans and tell them their voting district had been moved to one they couldn't vote in or told them the vote was going to be held on November 3rd? Oh, wait, I know, it's because of all those boxes of fradulant votes liberal voting groups kept bringing in well past the due date for absentee ballots? Or is it because you know that, with Al Gore and Clinton's plans to naturalize as many immigrants in demographics expected to vote Democrat, bypassing security measures and even granting citizenship to a serial killer who went on to kill here in America, should have turned the numbers even higher?

The local Democratic party in Ohio actually kicked the Kerry campaign out of their offices after they kept calling registered Republicans with the false information, after asking them multiple times to stop, according to their spokesperson (the Kerry campaign is, or at least was 3 months ago, getting sued by the GOP for that, which is why the spokesperson for Ohio's DNC came out and said, that that was taking place.)

I agree, there was an attempt to steal this vote, but the attempt failed. In the minds of them folks who did it, the only possible explanation is that the Republicans did it better. Could it...possibly be...that...Americans wanted...Bush to win?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Jungle Jake, former CIA Director George Tenet did not want those words going into that SoTU address. He/they knew the documents in question were crude forgeries.

It was a lie, straight up. Now did Georgie porgie know that? That is the question. His handlers, who most assuredly pushed phony intel knew it.

This lie was the foundation upon which Bush's phony rationale for war was based. That is why they have gone after Wilson so hard. He clearly and thoroughly debunked it.

Then later you actually had Paul Wolfowitz blabbing in Vanity Fair about how they decided that they'd use WMD for the rationale b/c it was the easiest way to scare America into accepting an invasion. The man came right out and said it! He is one total piece of work - and unlike Bush, I DON'T mean that in a good way.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I am aware of that, but I don't understand how that relates to Bush lying.


Bush is the mouthpiece...for Cheney and co. Cheney is/was part of PNAC (not sure of current status), and he's all over that faulty "intelligence" (read: lies). He did it for Iraq '91 as well. However, the buck stops with Bush.

Watch this CBC investigative journalism program that aired last fall and you'll see what I mean:

The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney

Click on watch the video, obviously



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
Please help me to understand this phenomenon.


It's actually pretty simple, I don't think he lied, I think he was wrong.

As to the WMDs, it is true that nations wanted to find the evidence before any military action could take place. However, they still believed they were there. Also, Kerry was saying there were WMDs long before Bush made the claim. A couple years even before he became Prez, even:


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002



"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998




"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002



"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The Bush administration defied the collective will of the world, in classic Texas style, and just went ahead and illegally invaded and occupied a SOVEREIGN nation. They've crushed the Geneva Conventions in the process, destroying America's ace up the sleeve - our cred on human rights - and have routinely snubbed their noses at and smeared those who disagree. You actually think stealing elections aren't part and parcel of this machine's repretoire? Come on JJ, don't be naive. These folks have been messing w/elections all over the world since taking office.

Take Hugo Chavez down in Beneswayla, they tried mightily to mucky up his presidency - didn't work tho.
Their interference couldn't have been more blatant.


Then there's those colour revolutions over in the 'stans. Bizee bizee bizee... And before all that, I was truly wondering what my friend was really doing over in Sochi, Russia.....

Here's an article from Black Box Voting... one of their guys was trying to watch the tabulation process of a vote and he got arrested for it. Gee.. arrested? For pursuing transparency? Why am I not surprise?




VIEWING THE DIEBOLD VOTE-TALLYING SCREEN PROHIBITED
Update - Tabulation results appear odd for July 26 election

Jim March, a member of the Black Box Voting board of directors, was arrested Tuesday evening for trying to observe the Diebold central tabulator (vote tallying machine) as the votes were being counted in San Diego's mayoral election (July 26).
www.bbvforums.org.../1954/8556.html



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
However, the buck stops with Bush.


Buck who?!



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It's actually pretty simple, I don't think he lied, I think he was wrong.


That in NO way excuses what has happened. Nearly 2,000 of our men and women in uniform and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis are now DEAD because of LIES. I could NEVER support anyone behind something so HEINOUS. SCREW party loyalty. My NATION comes first!

George W. Bush needs to be a MAN and accept responsibility and hold those who LIED to him accountable; otherwise, the whole damn lot of them should be impeached and tried for war crimes.

[edit on 7/28/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
However, the buck stops with Bush.


Buck who?!


Buck Bush, that's who! After all he's given it to you Americans up the rear pretty good in the last 5 1/2 years hasn't he. Time to get some of his own right back!


JungleJake - you give BushCo. far too much credit. I admire your loyalty, but its time to lay it on the line and call a spade a spade. On a balance of probabilities - they had access to far more information than you and I will ever have. They had to have known that there was no WMD well before going in. Thing is there was no way they could sell the war to the American people unless there was an "imminent" threat to your way of life. It was a masterful piece of theatre and that is a fact. And that is why the world community said no, and that is why is happened anyway...because America would never seek permission from the world. Even if the world was right. Which it was.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
The fact of the matter is, those who were in the know on Iraq and weapons inspections and ongoing military operations KNEW full well Saddam had been disarmed by the mid '90's and was incapable of making any serious moves - on any country. Remember, we had him totally physically contained through the No Fly Zones and economically contained through sanctions. People act like those things never happened.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
In 2001, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both stated that Saddam had been disarmed and that he was positively contained. By 2002, they were singing a completely different tune.


February 24, 2001: "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capacity with respect to weapons of mass destruction," says Secretary of State Colin Powell. "He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."




July 29, 2001: "We are able to keep his (Saddam's) arms from him," NSC advisor Rice tells the media. "His military forces have not been rebuilt."


These are quotes from Powell and Rice (pre-Sept.11) supporting my above contention. Guess someone gave 'em some of the Jonestown Kool-aid sometime after....

[edit on 7/28/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Make no mistake, it's not loyalty that makes me say these things, it's my interpretation of the evidence. I swear unyielding allegance to no man besides the Son of Man. I just don't see the evil and maliciousness in the man that you both seem to. "Zaphod Beeblebrox, he's just this guy, you know?"

ECK, if everyone knew that in the mid 90s, why did Saddam kick out the weapons inspectors, why have I seen things on the History channel and Military channel from ex-USAF and Navy pilots talking about the SAMs and Migs flying around in the no-fly zones during the 90s? There may have been economic sanctions on Iraq, but a ton of money was being funneled into the country through the Oil for Food program, and it's not looking like that money was spent on food. Also, as stated in the quotes I posted before, in 1998 it was "common" knowledge that Saddam had WMD programs in place and was developing them, if he didn't already have them. As Chirac said, he'd used them before and there was no reason to believe he wouldn't save some for future use. Saddam gave us no reason to believe he wouldn't. If this is a lie, it was started long before Bush got into office.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

ECK, if everyone knew that in the mid 90s, why did Saddam kick out the weapons inspectors, why have I seen things on the History channel and Military channel from ex-USAF and Navy pilots talking about the SAMs and Migs flying around in the no-fly zones during the 90s? There may have been economic sanctions on Iraq, but a ton of money was being funneled into the country through the Oil for Food program, and it's not looking like that money was spent on food. Also, as stated in the quotes I posted before, in 1998 it was "common" knowledge that Saddam had WMD programs in place and was developing them, if he didn't already have them. As Chirac said, he'd used them before and there was no reason to believe he wouldn't save some for future use. Saddam gave us no reason to believe he wouldn't. If this is a lie, it was started long before Bush got into office.


All that is old history and there is no sense revisiting it now. The fact is JJ that the inspectors were there in 2003 and they weren't finding anything significant. BushCo. knew that they wouldn't find anything so that is why they had to push it through with such urgency...because the longer the inspectors were there, the less they would be able to sell the war.

I'm glad you're not loyal to them because they don't deserve your loyalty. I do think that after all that we know now, they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. These people need to be held accountable now.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Mislead.


Mislead by the ones who gave him the power to do the things he does. It may be hard to find balance between popular opinion and just doing what's the right thing, but Americans can't easily remove themselves from responsibility for his actions.

We had the authority.
We had the responsibility.
We now have the mislead leading the mislead who chose the mislead to implant the mislead into their mislead white house.

errors of one man?

Or the failings of over 258,000,000?

Forgive me for saying so, but the actions and behaviours of anyone else that may have been elected would not differ as much as you think.

intentionality
mislead



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
JJ I agree with the poster a couple posts back. It's all ancient history now. And the proof is all there for those willing to SEE.

You have been lied to. open your eyes.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I would say Tyrant if he were actually in control of anything.

But since every single document he signs and every single word that comes out of his slack-jawed mouth is according to Dubya H., Cheney, Rummy and the cabal's directives, the only appropriate word is chimp.

Without them, the man couldn't organize a fart at a baked bean factory. Why do you think they had him learning to read his first words in a kindergarten while they carried out 9-11?

[edit on 2005-7-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Without them, the man couldn't organize a fart at a baked bean factory.


BURN!


I never in my life thought I would see such an incompetent holding the office.


As bad as Carter was, at least he was intelligent.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution