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.

 

OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Seattlelaw - thank you again. The last poster raises a point, though. Who is the alternative? Not Hillary, that's for sure. Every indication suggests she'd be every bit as hawkish as Bush. It's just nuts. We've got Gordon Brown or David Cameron, another Hobson's choice.

I was away from the UK when New 'Labour' got in. Many of my friends were bordering on the ecstatic that we'd kicked out the corrupt, authoritarian Tories, the party of Dread Thatch. I remember saying, in 'phone calls home, that it was just going to be more of the same. And so, indeed, it has proved, but with the Great Iraqi Mistake of '03 being more egregious than any of us could have surmised.

I'm not really a full-on conspiracy theorist compared to some people on these boards, but I did hear that Bliar was 'vetted' by the Bilderbergers before even John Smith became the leader of the party. Then JS dies of a heart attack...

And this I know for a fact. There was an article in Nexus magazine detailing last year's Bilderberger meeting. In this article, it was mentioned that the B'ers decided that Angela Merckel was going to be the next premier of Germany. A friend who lives over there was pretty skeptical of her chances... and yet, now, there she is. And in rather unusual circumstances to boot.

One of the criteria for evaluating a theory, I believe, is to do with its predictive value. It is all, at the least, very odd, I must say.




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
A love fest of socialist, Bush -hating posters. Your dem commrades have no new ideas, do not develop any new ideas to help the country and are simple mindedly focused on tearing down this admin. Silly. What have you/they to offer besides yellow cake and and a non-operative-operative cia gal?

Thanks for the effort to defend us against those who wish (THE ENEMY) to destroy us.....uh, I think you truly believe they exist, do you not?????????

Go ahead, impeach, (not going to happen, the house may loose, but the senate will remain in GOP control) it will not help the country in this confligration of ideas we are now involved in and shooting ourselves in the foot is truly ironic. What is it Dems want? POWER>. Period. Nothing as much as this single wish intangles Dems more now than the regaining of both houses of Govt. Pathetic. At least at this point we are fighting and not whimpering to the Un-United nations for help, ala the many world, body dumps past, present and Darfur...........hmmm.

Let Sadaam kill another million.................



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   


A love fest of socialist, Bush -hating posters. Your dem commrades have no new ideas, do not develop any new ideas to help the country and are simple mindedly focused on tearing down this admin. Silly. What have you/they to offer besides yellow cake and and a non-operative-operative cia gal?


NURSE! He's out of bed again... and I thought I told you not to let him watch Fox News, it messes with his mind!

Just a reminder: The yellowcake thing was a FORGERY. It was never actually real. Now I dare say your grasp on reality is much like a baby's on a buttered anvil, but do try to keep up.

Here's the second part: Valerie Plame's cover was blown by Karl Rove, and all the signs are that Bush and Cheney knew about it. And indeed were behind it. Personally, I'm always glad when a CIA operative is unmasked, as it limits the amount of mischief they can make... but it IS illegal to do that in your country. Even if you're the prez or the veep.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Just a reminder: The yellowcake thing was a FORGERY. It was never actually real. Now I dare say your grasp on reality is much like a baby's on a buttered anvil, but do try to keep up.

Just a reminder, but your reminder that the yellowcake thing was a forgery was incorrect:
New Iraqi Documents Show Bush Didn't 'Lie'
And in case you have source issues:
Tapes reveal WMD plans by Saddam




Here's the second part: Valerie Plame's cover was blown by Karl Rove,

Not according to Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby.





and all the signs are that Bush and Cheney knew about it. And indeed were behind it.

Of course they did, they legally authorized it.





Personally, I'm always glad when a CIA operative is unmasked, as it limits the amount of mischief they can make... but it IS illegal to do that in your country.

Correct.




Even if you're the prez or the veep.

Wrong. The President has the legal authority to declassify that which he deems necessary.






seekerof

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I do have source issues with NewsMax, but in fact, a close look at your source gives the game away in any event: it hinges on your definition of 'recently'. The NewsMax article states that Saddam tried to get the yellowcake 'in the mid 1990s'. Now, frankly, I think that's stretching the definition of 'recently' and for Bush to use that in his address is downright misleading.

Plus, the documents were FORGED. I don't think there's any disputing that, is there? The IAEA knew it, and the CIA knew it, and Colin Powell knew it. For Bush to go ahead and rely on them is lying, face up to it.

And the old "Bush can do what he wants and because he's president that makes it legal' angle certainly doesn't wash with me.

As for the Plamegate thing, I'm sticking with the version of events as I understand it until Patrick Fitzgerald runs out of steam, at which point of view I'll look at it again.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Seattlelaw - thank you again. The last poster raises a point, though. Who is the alternative? Not Hillary, that's for sure. Every indication suggests she'd be every bit as hawkish as Bush. It's just nuts. We've got Gordon Brown or David Cameron, another Hobson's choice.


Yeah, I don't know an alternative ready for prime time. I was a Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) delegate in Washington last time. I really like him. He gets testy but I like his fire. He's on top of what's going on and he refuses corporate donations to his campaigns. He comes from a poor family and has no ties to the elite. Of course, if he were a serious candidate he would probably be assassinated (can you say "Wellstonne?"). Nonetheless, I think he's the man of the hour. I would go to battle for him again.



I was away from the UK when New 'Labour' got in. Many of my friends were bordering on the ecstatic that we'd kicked out the corrupt, authoritarian Tories, the party of Dread Thatch. I remember saying, in 'phone calls home, that it was just going to be more of the same. And so, indeed, it has proved, but with the Great Iraqi Mistake of '03 being more egregious than any of us could have surmised.


I hear you! I was excited by New Labour chasing the Tories as well. Thatcher was Reagan in a skirt. Yikes! But Bliar is obviously willing to sell his soul to the Devil - has.



I'm not really a full-on conspiracy theorist compared to some people on these boards, but I did hear that Bliar was 'vetted' by the Bilderbergers before even John Smith became the leader of the party. Then JS dies of a heart attack...


Scary. Like the guy who died when the truth about the 'need' to go to Iraq was revealed? Who was that guy they killed again? I'm slipping. They've all killed so many people in the last few years I lose track. He was a scientist or bureaucrat, I believe.


And this I know for a fact. There was an article in Nexus magazine detailing last year's Bilderberger meeting. In this article, it was mentioned that the B'ers decided that Angela Merckel was going to be the next premier of Germany. A friend who lives over there was pretty skeptical of her chances... and yet, now, there she is. And in rather unusual circumstances to boot.

One of the criteria for evaluating a theory, I believe, is to do with its predictive value. It is all, at the least, very odd, I must say.


Yes, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. I admit I am new to the whole Bilderberger theory. The NWO and all, it is a bit depressing. However it does seem to make sense that those who are in control would want to maximize that control and kill anyone in their way. Sad but sensible from the paranoid schizo mind-set that seems to energize these sick ... people. But our power is in numbers. And that is what they fear. That is why I believe that the internet will be controlled soon. Too much knowledge being spread too widely.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofWrong. The President has the legal authority to declassify that which he deems necessary.


He didn't declassify anything! He leaked it! There's a difference, don't you think? He selectively leaked 'intelligence' favorable to his goals while repressing intelligence that contradicted that goal. A healthy democracy requires a knowledgeable citizenry. Deceiving the public is not a job requirement for the office of the chief executive unless his name is Nixon - or now - Bush.

Why can't you Bushies acknowledge the overt and gross manipulation of the media and public opinion by purchasing 'journalists' and spreading misinformation? The apologists for these people infuriate me. It goes beyong politics. It constitutes the sell-off of democracy. It is treasonous. That you should applaud this behavior is offensive in the extreme. You are an accompice. You are what makes this behavior - this fetid reality - possible. And I despise you for it. All of you Bush apologists. You are a cancer on our society.

This thing is not editing correctly. But you can see the quote from the earlier post.
- seattlelaw


[edit on 30-4-2006 by seattlelaw]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by seattlelaw]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by seattlelaw]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Hi Seattlelaw -

The scientist you were thinking about was Dr. David Kelly. He gave an interview to the BBC in which he said that Alastair Campbell, then chief spin-doctor to Bliar, had 'sexed-up' the dodgy dossier that MI5 had prepared to support the case for war.

Then his name was leaked to the news media, who started hounding him.

Kelly was very well informed about Saddam's preparedness (or otherwise) and a whole bunch of other stuff. He'd debriefed Soviet defectors in the past and had a long history of serving his country.

So the press hound him for a while, and then he turns up dead in some woods. The official story was that he had gone for a walk and slit his wrists. Although not much blood was found at the scene. Then, when it emerged that he had ECG pads on his torso under his shirt, he was supposed to have had an appointment with a doctor who'd revealed he had a dodgy heart. He'd then got really depressed and gone off to the woods to top himself.

The BBC kept mentioning "the suicide of Dr. David Kelly". It was a real lesson in propaganda for me. A month or so after this happened I went to work abroad... and lo and behold, all the media were talking about "the alleged suicidde of Dr. David Kelly". Now I had, from the first, been suspicious of what had happened... but the constant repetition of the word "suicide" without the word "alleged" in front of it had subliminally worn me down. Then as more stuff came out, and as the inquest unfolded, it became clear that we were looking at some sort of Intel Services action.

And yes, I think we can say "Paul Wellstone". That was SUCH a shame. He seemed a quite anomalously good guy for a politician. The machine likes its pols malleable and corrupt.

I like what you're saying about Kucinich.

But as for Thatcher being Reagan in a skirt... my take on it is that she was there to ensure that US-based capital could get its hooks into Britain's infrastructure. The privatisation mania that she introduced has really banjaxed this country. BUT, where she differed from Reagan is that she actually had a brain. There may have been a nasty, shriveled, dry thing where her heart was supposed to be, but she could argue her corner. Whereas, I may be doing him an injustice, but I don't think Ronnie could think his way out of a wet paper bag, really.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I think its time to Impeach Bush if not over do.People say were do we start,we start with 9\11 the cover up by him & his administration.the man is a crimminal we can't just let him walk away.All those people that died in the twin towers & the people in the planes that died.He fabricated evidence & spun it into truth & when he convinced enough people that this was the truth,he brought it to congress &
showed his so called truth, & congress bought it.Bush is the lier not congress.this
gave him the ticket to invade Iraq.The killing in Iraq will go on for ever if we don't stop this man.Bush has a lot of blood on his hands & all these other scandles that
hes accused of as well.Bush is not above the law & justice needs to take place because this man & his administration are guilty & should put behind bars.
THATS JUSTICE.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tcdueck
I think its time to Impeach Bush if not over do.People say were do we start,we start with 9\11 the cover up by him & his administration.the man is a crimminal we can't just let him walk away.


President Bush was not behind the 9/11 attacks.


He fabricated evidence & spun it into truth & when he convinced enough people that this was the truth


This isn't a batman movie...get real!!


Bush is the lier not congress.this gave him the ticket to invade Iraq.


If you have an evidence that President Bush lied to Congress, then please bring it foward...if not then please do not present that as fact.

-- Boat

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
President Bush was not behind the 9/11 attacks.

Prove it.
Ah but actually you are technically correct, Bush wasn't behind the attack, he was WAY AHEAD of it, after all he did manage to see the First Plane Hit the WTC on television somehow before anybody else was, and FEMA was ordered into NY Sept. 10, they had just changed the laws to keep Pilots from having firearms, and they changed the chain of command for stand down orders for NORAD. The CIA was meeting with Osama weeks before 911, and the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex the weekend before 9-11, and several people were directly warned not to fly commercial aircraft that day. So yeah, you're right, he wasn't behind them, he was ahead of them.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'm not impressed with anyone running for political office at the moment.

I have no loyalty to Democrats or Republicans and we all know that sadly anyone
running outside the two party system has little chance of making it to office.

Corruption and mismanagement are running rampant within our current governmental systems,
so the only hope we have is to take action, starting with our LOCAL officials and clean house.

Every last one of you should be demanding the truth from your elected officials!

Many people take the time to post to these forums, but how many take a fraction of that time to
contact their local representatives?

How many bother to vote in state and local elections?

Your political responsibility is not served simply by turning out once every 4 years to vote
in presidential elections.

Frankly, this is OUR FAULT and it's OUR responsibility to fix it.

People allow these crafty political salesmen to divide us with wedge issues of personal choice,
so we lose focus of the REAL ISSUES that affect every one of us.

Education, Health Care, Housing, Employment, Energy, Transportation and Food for every last one of us.

Just imagine what the money diverted to influential corporate interests could have done to
solve REAL problems all of us are faced with.

Yes we need a strong military to keep the peace, but we did not need to fuel an entire new generation of potential threats, when all we really needed to do was hunt down a small handful
of criminal extremists.

Whether you believe 911 was real or an event created to justify military funding, the situation
we are in now has little to do with it.

Our brave soldiers have been used as expendable pawns in a failed corporate takeover of natural resources.

We certainly can not afford to fan the flames any further by making more enemies.

China now has the economic power to bring us to our knees without lighting so much as a firecracker.

We have been lied to and deceived by our current leadership and we must now either take responsibility for our own complacency or we might as well allow congress to amend the constitution to read

WE THE SHEEPLE






[edit on 30-4-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Prove it.


No, see that's not how it works. The facts show that President Bush was not behind or ahead of the 9/11 attacks.

Again, if you have any proof that he was please bring it foward, if not then do not persent that duboius notion as fact. Thanks.

-- Boat


[edit on 30-4-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Funny, president Bush and his cronies are #1 suspects in 9/11. So, the propondrance of the evidence rests on HIM to show us he wasnt behind it.



In this case, Boatphone


[edit on 30-4-2006 by dgtempe] Your honor, the prosecution rests.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
9/11: Well, as far as I've seen there is more evidence on the anti- Bush side than for the "Bush didn't do it" side. The theorists (people who beleive the gvmnt was behind this) have come up with their evidence explaining why they think Bush had a role on 9/11 ( NORAD, warnings to officials, peculiar behavior by part of FEMA and the bomb squads). But the other side hardly came up with any evidence explaining why Bush WAS NOT behind 9/11. Maybe there is the evidence for the pro - Bush side, but if any it is very little. Around 50 percent of New Yorkers think the gvmnt had prior knowledge so Bush has to prove himself; it is an issue of national security.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Many of those who wish to act have been placed under a gag order.

It's remarkable what people will tollerate when they fear the loss of their livelihood, their homes
and the security and safety of their loved ones.

We are not talking about a handful of CTers here.

These are respected and honored members of their communities, first responders, officers,
and hard working citizens.

To many, the only option they really have is to vote in the next congressional elections.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
yeah, David Kelly. Thanks for the reminder. Damned shame they capped him for being honest and a true patriot. Not the first time though.


Originally posted by rich23
And yes, I think we can say "Paul Wellstone". That was SUCH a shame. He seemed a quite anomalously good guy for a politician. The machine likes its pols malleable and corrupt.


Wellstone was a real threat to the corporatists and militarists. He was the stated number one target in the upcoming fall elections according to the neocon machine. I guess they got their boy, and his wife, daughter, campaign staffer and pilot. HUGE loss for the progressives.



I like what you're saying about Kucinich.


He's on it. His only problem is that he's not one of the elite in the party and he doesn't raise money for the party because he refuses to be bought. To be successful in either party you have to be a big fund-raiser and pay your dues in other ways too.



But as for Thatcher being Reagan in a skirt... my take on it is that she was there to
ensure that US-based capital could get its hooks into Britain's infrastructure. The privatisation mania that she introduced has really banjaxed this country. BUT, where she differed from Reagan is that she actually had a brain. There may have been a nasty, shriveled, dry thing where her heart was supposed to be, but she could argue her corner. Whereas, I may be doing him an injustice, but I don't think Ronnie could think his way out of a wet paper bag, really.


Well, of course you're right about Thatcher and Reagan. By the end, Reagan was consulting his wife's astrologer for insight. He had the right idea about nukes though and was motivated to come to terms with Moscow for that reason. His antipathy for nukes resulted from his watching a made for television movie called "The Day After" in which post nuclear holocaust is depicted dramatically. So it took a tv movie to move national politics.

All I can say is, I wish Bush would watch that movie too. In between naps.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Funny, president Bush and his cronies are #1 suspects in 9/11. So, the propondrance of the evidence rests on HIM to show us he wasnt behind it.


On what planet are President Bush and his friends #1 suspects in the 9/11 attacks?

In case you missed it we are at war with a terrorist network that planned and carried out 9/11. Please, forget the absurd, and truly offensive idea, that the U.S. government had anything to do with the attacks!

-- Boat

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Funny, president Bush and his cronies are #1 suspects in 9/11. So, the propondrance of the evidence rests on HIM to show us he wasnt behind it.

What legal system you live under and by?

Get off the "propondrance of the evidence rests on him" garbage, dgtempe.

Heads up here, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidences, and guess what dgtempe, you or anyone else that has claimed that Bush, the Bush Administration, or the U.S. government was behind or involved with the tragedy of 9/11 has yet to empirically prove or provide empirical evidences to that alleged "propondrance of the evidence" that "rests [against] him."

He has nothing to show you or anyone else. He is not claiming to have or have not been involved in 9/11, to the contrary, it is you, as with others, that have blamed and asserted that HE was indeed behind or involved with 9/11. Thus, the logical conclusion here is that it is you, as with others, that need to provide and/or prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush or his adminstration or the government was involved and are indeed guilty.

Simply put: The burdon of proof rests with you and others, not him.




Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Your honor, the defense rests.







seekerof

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I am not an American, however I can say that your current president is slowly bringing a new level of hate towards your country. If this is something you don't care about, then you are with the President. If it is something you care about, please do something about it. The world is still laughing at the election shams and now we cry at the petrol pump wondering why the hell the war is raging, who is making all the money, and aren't you even going to bother to catch the guy responsible for the Twin Towers? Oh yeah, too busy, nuclear war to start.... I am sorry for my sarcasm, but the image I have of the States is one of utter corruption, bully tactics and rich puppets that the public will do nothing about. I beg you to prove me wrong. I mean, are you serious? You honestly feel Mr. Bush is waving some sort of freedom flag? If only one percent of all the rumours of his career and string pulling is true, the flag should be one of shame. But then, when it comes to politics, what are ya gonna do? The rich get richer, the rest of us just rot away...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join