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.


When does Bush Lie? When his lips move

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 10:05 AM
"We are beginning to realize that Bush's campaign tactics in the Republican primaries against Sen. John McCain were not an aberration. When Bush's allies and minions in New York distorted McCain's position on breast cancer research and earlier attacked him in personal terms in South Carolina, we got a first peek at Bush's willingness to tolerate almost any tactic on his way to a goal. " - Washington Post

"The Bush administration is an extremely elitist clique trying to maintain a populist facade. Its domestic policies are designed to benefit a very small number of people basically those who earn at least $300,000 a year, and really don't care about either the environment or their less fortunate compatriots. True, this base is augmented by some powerful special-interest groups, notably the Christian right and the gun lobby. But while this coalition can raise vast sums, and can mobilize operatives to stage bourgeois riots when needed, the policies themselves are inherently unpopular. Hence the need to reshape those malleable facts." - NY Times

"Bush runs the government by half truths" - The American Prospect

Detailed Analysis of the Lies in Bush's 10/7 Speech - Institue for Public Accuracy

One of the best quotes I've found to mirror Bush's War Position Lies:
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 10:56 AM
"Everybody makes mistakes when they open their mouths and we forgive them. What worries me about some of these is they appear to be with foresight. This is about public policy in its grandest sense, about potential wars and who is our enemy, and a president has a special obligation to getting it right."

- Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess as quoted by Dana Milbank in this Washington Post article, diplomatically calling Preznit Dubya on his recent flurry of FLAT-OUT LIES. Click on the link to read the story that sent White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a death spiral.

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 09:39 AM
you make some really good posts Bout time,
strange though, when you come out with this stuff all the republicans/ right wingers seem strangely reluctant to reply. I'd take that to mean your doing something right. keep it up.

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 05:06 PM
Partisanship over reasoned perspective and patriotism is dangerous regardless of party or political system....I wish they would see that too! They'd get better Republicans out of that process!

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 07:53 PM
George Bush is not our president. He is the president of the Scull & Bones, and the elite of the Bohemian Grove. It is there interests he serves, not the american people!

Therefore, he is guilty of treason against, the american people.

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 12:21 AM
Are you using the word "treason" as defined in the Constitution that Bush has sworn to uphold?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

So how does mere *membership" in those "clubs" make him guilty of treason? Perhaps if he actually committed some *act of treason* while following the "duties" of these groups, the I'd say "yes"...But then, you'd have to be able to accumulate enough evidence to force him to trial for it.

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

I haven't heard any news about whether or not Congress allowed Bush to accept Knighthood from the Crown of England...Does anybody know about Bush having such permission?

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

You need to realize that it doesn't take an Act of Treason to have a President Impeached & stand trial...Merely disregarding his Oath of Office & creating *any* "Executive Order" that goes counter to the Constitution would be enough evidence of his broken oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 08:55 AM

From those who profess Constitutional scholarship on these boards, I find you to be the only non-partisan.

Answer me this:
1) Isn't the 'bribery' clause already breached by way of the quid pro quo over policies written to accomodate lobbyists running their related administration post?

2) Congress didn't amend the Constitution, so isn't the whole Iraq War powers thing illegal?

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 11:09 AM
1: Yes
2: Yes

However, the Constitution *does* allow for the President to take certain types of "emergency actions" under certain circumstances...But Congress has to back him up within a certain time limit or he has to stop.

For example, as listed under the Powers of Congress:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
And yet, didn't Bush get funding from Congress for the new war that was supposed to last for (a minimum) of *ten* years? The Constitution clearly states that such appropriations can't last more than *two* years, Congressional backing or not.

IMO, politicians use the "bi-partisan bickering" to keep the People confused & off-balance...By using such labels, they can keep the People bickering amongst each other to the point of being distracted away from the *real* issues or from investigating the truth of what goes on behind our backs. This constant bickering is perhaps the main reason why the People haven't been able to unite against the machinations of the government.

"Divide & Conquer"...

[Edited on 13-2-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 02:17 PM
Thank you, there are two post in this section I'm putting up that are related & I think you'll find interestin.

top topics


log in