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.

 

Bush deserves an apology

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Sorry Mr. Bush. Its all our fault. We take full responsibility.

Now can we please leave Iraq? Pretty please?




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The clear problem with some of the assertions made is that there were plenty of people from both sides of the U.S. political aisle as well as leaders from other countries that made it clear that it was believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, that he was playing shell games with the U.N. inspectors right up until they were pulled out and that he INTENTIONALLY was uncooperative. To come along now and say that Bush was alone in thinking that the WMD's were still in Iraq is intellectually dishonest, and anyone who was sober and lucid during the last decade or so is fully aware of this.

When I first saw the report that even Saddam's military leaders thought that the special weapons were there and were to be used, my first thought was not that Bush was owed an apology, and to make such a statement is nothing more than crap-stirring. Bush is owed an apology because of lame assertions like the ones made here and in the political arena as those making those assertions conveniently forget that those political leaders who initiate these notions are also the same ones who are one record saying the same things Bush did. To suggest an apology would be offered now is to ignore all the other political attacks that are without looking at all the facts, but only the ones supportive of the anti-Bush, anti-American point of view.

Pure politics and, as usual with politics, all the facts need not apply as the truth is not the goal.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
TC,

Why must anti-Bush and anti-America be synonymous?

I really dont like Bush, or any of his administration, but I consider myself a very proud American. While I doubt it will make a difference, I figured I would be civil in asking that you do not group us all together.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I am not disputing anything mentioned above, and I may be wrong in my assumption, but I believe that I may have been misunderstood in this matter, and, if so, I apologise to Thomas Crowe for raising your blood pressure unnecessarily and unintentionally.

I origionaly posted this article with full intention of it being a news piece and not particularly as a heated discussion point. Unfortunately I may not have aproached it correctly and I understand that it was moved to a more fitting location.

Unwittingly I went on to digress with my opinion in an attempt to interact with the few who felt they needed to express themselves on this matter, and at that juncture I can see that the thread took on a new life, slightly dismembering itself from its origional course.

I dont mean to cause any conflict of words especially with the alliance, and I meant for nobody to take my opinions in the broad sense.

I would like to stress that I do not hold anyone, including Bush, solely resposible for any political descisions during the Iraq war. I am british and I simply believe Blair and both governments along with a lot of outside global influence, should take responsibility for this particular oversight in international intelligence. Meaning simply to ask the question - do any of the powers that overlooked intelligence during this period deserve an apology?.
Although the artical was phrased (Maybe carelessly) from FoxNews stating that Bush alone required the apology.

I am now going to assess my coments in this thread and edit anything that will be in contradictory to this particular statement.

edit1 litteracy
edit2 typo
[edit on 14-3-2006 by xSMOKING_GUNx]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by xSMOKING_GUNx]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I understand that people have been quite heated in this post. But, I have two questions to ask:

Why didn't the GWB administration believe Scott Ritter when he said that Iraq had no WMD's?

I think before the discussion goes on, I think that people should see this from democracynow.org. Scott Ritter gives his take on this situation about the WMD's in an interview:


We speak with Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 about his new book: "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." It details how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United States in the Middle East....Scott Ritter, was the United Nations' top weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. Before working for the UN he served as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war. He is author of a new book, just out, titled "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein."

Ritter's take on the WMDs

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Why didn't the GWB administration or Prime Minister Blair believe Hans Blix when he said that Iraq had no WMD's?

Here is an article from the site "commondreams.org" in which Hans Blix clearly attests that there are no WMD's in Iraq:



The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Read more of the story here

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Does Mr. Bush deserve an apology now? Should FOX News deserve to give us an apology for its propaganda?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I agree with Thomas Crowne inasmuch as it annoys me that the Democrats are also guilty of obfuscating the truth, which is that they, like Bush and his cabinet, were also in a position to know the truth- or at least, "know the unknowns," as Rumsfeld would say, long before they voted on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. I could not believe my eyes and ears on that day, and just as I wait for the current administration to end its smokescreen, I also wait for the opposition to get its act together and admit the truth, which is that they were too scared of losing votes than to to their job as an opposition party and raise the questions at the time that needed to be raised. A very few tried... I think I could name 2, which is about the same number of Senators that voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all owe America an apology, as far as I'm concerned, but more importantly they all need to start dealing in truths, and the sooner the better.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Its a cliche. To be Anti-Bush is to be unpatriotic and AntiAmerican now. Since day one of this administration this strategy has worked very well for them. Taken up by the radio and tv talking heads, the message is now ingrained in peoples mind that if you dont agree with things you get this label.

Lets not think for ourselves. Lets not have an opinion. Lets follow blindly in adoration and not see the faults. After all, we are not free to do so and think otherwise anymore.

Each day that passes i can compare this scenario with Communism more and more. Any extremes most certainly lead to the same place.

Lets give up everything America has stood for hundreds of years- the ability and capability to say what you feel about the government who works for us.

WMD's were gone out of there and everyone knew it. None could be found and we went ahead anyway, because this war time president had to have something to do. I wonder what kind of president George would have been without a war? A warless war time president.


Here's looking forward to his early retirement



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Fox news is dyslexic. Government needs to apologize to the people for corruption, fraud, racketeering, money laundering and war crimes.

News of the future:




posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Seemed to me from Day One that the claims of WMD were false, and I know that /I/ had many discussions about it, and posted things elsewhere about it. And I wasn't a lone voice in the wilderness by any means - there was a great many people decrying the claims, both in the public and private sectors.

What /did/ happen however, is, that a lot of politicians, afraid to be called unpatriotic or worse, gave a lot of lip service. And now, in revisionist fashion, suddenly, it's being painted that the whole world was in unison about WMDs and marching into Iraq hand in hand. Which simply isn't true.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
Surely it would be more of sane mind to quit while you are ahead and try to improve the current situation to benefit all


Quit while your ahead? Huh??? How did you work the 'ahead' bit out?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The words "Quit while you are ahead" were not meant to be taken as anything more than a figure of speech.

Maybe I should have said "You cant afford to be any more behind" or possibly something along the lines of "this spin is not effectively helping your cause".

Although it was not really my vocabulary that is the point to this article, thanks for correcting me.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
why should Bush get an apology? hes the leader of only superpower on earth. he took the job knowing he is accountable for everything that his administration does. when your in charge and people undernearth you screw up you fire them . no questions asked. you just do it.
Intel gave him bs reports and he goes on national tv to scare everyone. waltzing into Iraq was a cakewalk with hardly any casualties, now insurgents are picking off american soldiers like a turkey shoot. like how many roadsidebombs do people have to put up with. thats all we hear on the news roadside bomb this, suicide bomber that. these thorns in the sides in Iraq are making a mockery of the supposedly most efficient military in a world.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
The presence of WMD's was a virtual truth to leaders all over the free world.
But you already know that, it's just conveniently ignored.


Actually, that's not quite correct. Many western leaders disagreed with the Bush position on WMD in Iraq as did many within our own State Department and other branches of our own govt. Many of them resigned in disgust at the Iraq misadventure. It took Colin Powell's as of then untarnished reputation and some cheap sketches of "mobile weapons labs" to persuade the 'coalition of the willing' to get involved. Sure, Blair would follow Bush into hell, so Britain doesn't count.

Bush got his way with Iraq because the vast majority of the Republicans in Congress are naught but boot-lickers, happy to rubber stamp anything their fearless leader decides to do. The decision was in PNAC years earlier. They just needed a 'new Pearl Harbor' to get it done. The only WMDs in Iraq have been dropped by the US. Reality man, take a bite.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I don't care about the stupid war or how much Bush lies to us. As far as I'm concerned, ALL war is stupid, and if there's been a politician that wasn't telling lies in the last 50 years, they weren't really considered a politician and probably didn't get any farther up the ladder than 'Mayor'.

What I can't fathom is how someone that supposedly is 'smart' enough to be President of the United States can say something like: "I don't know if it's a choice or not," when it comes to Homosexuality, but will then FULLY support a constitutional amendment to federally ban me from EVER getting married to my boyfriend.

He apparently hasn't thought about it enough to decide if people like me "chose" to be gay or not, but he's fully ready to write into MY constitution that I'm a second class citizen, not worthy of the same rights others get, just because the way I am is a little 'icky' to him.

For the above reason, I think he owes ME an apology, and quite a few other MILLION americans.

He owes an apology to the rest of america because he's an idiot, he's LIED his ass off to us, it doesn't matter about what, the fact is he has LIED- and if he didn't 'technically' lie because he was uninformed, or because of plausible deniability, or because his memory sucks, or just because his IQ can be counted on one hand, then why is he the president!?!?!? Shouldn't he be informed about the runnings of our government and military? I think he's just more concerned about who tried to "shoot at my pa" and playing this little politics game so he can one-up his old frat buddies at the reunions.

If he'd quit pretending to be such a 'nobleman' and such a 'good Christian', and actually had to live like a 'Real American' for just one day, I bet things would change VERY quickly!

In my opinion, the rotten potato that has been under my kitchen sink since last summer (you know, the one that has sprouted new eyes under there) could do a better job of being president than that smirky little frat boy.

The person in charge of our country has broken more laws and done things WAY more immoral than me, - - but what do I know, I'm just a worthless, filthy little faggot that unquestioningly pays his taxes and obeys the laws of this country, just so people like Bush can walk all over me.

And god forbid anyone question anything, or we're labeled "Un-American" or "Anti-Freedom" - and with the patroit act still in effect, who in thier right mind would question the status-quo? - I wouldn't want to risk going to jail either!



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I take it thats a 'no he doesnt deserve an apology' from paul, gotta say what you see I guess.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

We deserve an apology.


Damn straight we do.

Enough of this "No one could have anticipated..." crap. It's time someone man'ed up and took responsibility for something for once.

I won't hold my breath though...



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
haha who is he kidding. The CIA did not mislead him. We deserve an apology for the fake war and his wiretappin. He should go to trial just like any of us regualr civilians. Don't beleive bush, don't be a bushtard.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
What he deserves is my size 14's (49.5's europe) right square up his arse. Nothing more (no lube), nothing less (laces still tied).

Lets see what that stupid little smirk on his face looks like then!



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrBones666

Bush deserves the following, in this order

1) Impeachment
2) A trial for War Crimes
3) A guilty verdict
4) A bullet in the head
5) His body dismembered and every part taken to different parts of the globe as a warning to deter any other budding dictators out there.



Then we should dismember all major political parties and start again for the benefit of THE PEOPLE, not the GLOBALISTS and BANKSTERS.




I'm amazed by this post and surprised that there hasn't been some form of comment by the moderation staff considering some of the reasons other members have been banned. This poster is advocating the assassination of the POTUS and nary a harsh word.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
That WAS a little much. I'd like to see me get away with that one.



I am sure the good lord above will find the appropriate place for him.

I count on it.

(Bush, not the poster
)

[edit on 18-3-2006 by dgtempe]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join