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 Interview 60 minutes (full Transcript)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Its interesting to compare this ;



BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we're all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do.


(Taken from the CBS transcript)

With these ;



18 Sep 2002 : Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."




28 Oct 2002 : During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."




1 Nov 2002 : During a speech at the Pease International Tradeport Airport in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons."




3 Nov 2002 : During a speech at the Illinois Police Academy in Springfield, Illinois, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them. He's a man that not only has weapons of mass destruction, he's used them."


and my own personal favourite Rumsfeld quote



30 Mar 2003 : Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."


All taken from here

Iraqi WMD's

Apologies to the mods if this constitutes over zealous quoting but I'm using them to make my point.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." as the saying goes.

The Bush admin used all three, and whether or not it was part of a plan from the start, its still the case. People can argue that it was part of a PNAC plan, or that the rot goes deeper and further back. You can try and blame Clinton, but its Bush thats been running the show since the war in Iraq started and at the end of the day he's the man responsible. I read the transcript of the 60 minutes interview and it just came over as appalling - how did a guy who can't even seem to throw a sentence together properly get to be the President of the USA?

Get a blow job and get impeached.
Preside over a farce and have 3,000+ war dead on your record and stay in office.

Heres another quote, from David Bowie

"This is not America"

Whats happened over there guys?




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
But started it for what? Everyone says oil, and although that may help America it does not help the presidents financial situation at all....right?


I find it hard to believe that he would kill 3000 americans in those buildings


I think maybe the greater goal of protecting Global Capitalism and the capital penetration process played a great role in his decision making, much like many other presidents of the US.

After all, how do you gain profit from a country who's interior industry is aligned with the not-for-profit public sector (oil industry specifically)


Originally posted by racerzeke
why would the us president want to disrupt america? please tell me


Well, if you look at who the US has supported, in countries abroad, over the last 50 years (leadership wise), and what type of governments US leaders have overthrown, you may notice a shocking trend of right wing despots and dictators gaining military aid, training, direct US foriegn AID (in dollars), and CIA support. Meanwhile an country attempting egalitarian reforms (or governments with a "leftist" agenda) are attacked with sactions (which only really hurt the civial population), by proxy or CIA trained mercinary armies, or by direct US military intervension.

So why support the right while attacking the left? Well it has to do with Capital, and who skims the cream in society. Leftist regims move for land and labour reforms, and wealth redistribution (just to name a few things). these actions often blow the higher class citizens out of the water. If you were a rich elitist that wants to hold on to his land and cash, who would you support?

How this relates back to destablizing the US is simple. The same policy of social rollbacks being preformed in the third world by direct or indirect US intervention is being preformed in North America as well. Cutbacks in healthcare, education, welfare, labour, and environmental laws. Meanwhile increased spending in military and intellegence spending will lead to an impoverished population, a huge and cheap labour pool, no peskey envornment to protect, and an entrenched and powerful military to keep the populous inline.

These actions eliminate the middle class, creating a 2 class system. it thins the rich heard down to an even smaller number of obsenely rich land owners and military contractors, and definately means the death of tens of thousands of men, women, and children. As Michael Parenti puts it: "Its the Third Worldization of the US."


Originally posted by kojac
Replace "poor gullible pawn" with "rich gullible pawn" and you've got it in one.



I dont think hes a pawn at all. I think he learned from his father and from the many other US leaders who have gone about similar actions in the past.

IMO, just because he fumbles his speaches and doesnt seem to be able to articulate US foreign policy in the ways his predicesors have does not make him stupid. in fact i think hes a callus, cold calculated killer.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
any other president wouldnt of lied to the world, gone against the UN, and ILLEGIALLY invaded and occupied a foreign land.


two more things then im done...
CLinton and the "rational" destruction of Yugoslavia come to mind when mentioning lieing to the world. Though NATO and the UN backed him, still doesnt make it right. And finally, i hate to nitpick but can you single out what US law made the iraq war illegal?

Im not saying it wasnt wrong and Immoral, but the senate (and congress if im not mistaken) OKed the invasion

Sorry this was so long but i hope that cleared up a few things for you.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
"Well, if you look at who the US has supported, in countries abroad, over the last 50 years (leadership wise), and what type of governments US leaders have overthrown, you may notice a shocking trend of right wing despots and dictators gaining military aid, training, direct US foriegn AID (in dollars), and CIA support. Meanwhile an country attempting egalitarian reforms (or governments with a "leftist" agenda) are attacked with sactions (which only really hurt the civial population), by proxy or CIA trained mercinary armies, or by direct US military intervension. "

If you will recall, that for those 50yrs, we were involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. They were trying to spread Communism, we were trying to stop the spread of Communism. Communism failed, as it was a terminally flawed system. It's easy to sit here and judge methods used, when the options generally were the lesser of two evils, Communism being the greater evil taking over 100 million lives, and oppressing countless others.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I thought this point was pretty good-

BUSH: It doesn't look like it to me. And maybe there will be one. Now, I've listened to a lot of good folks who are Democrats who have expressed their opinions. They're just as patriotic as I am. And the interesting is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, "Well, we can't afford to fail." In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. But what's deafening is those who say "we can't afford to fail and here's the plan that will cause us not to fail." Frankly, that's not their responsibility. It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.

The Democrats do need to offer different options other than- we don't like your plan.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by coronamoz
Watching this, I have a little bit more respect for Bush.

He seemed collected and calm. My intuition tells me that he is not the villain some make him out to be. He just seems like some poor gullible pawn.


If this is true, then what is up with himself and the last 2 generations of his family being involved with mock human sacrafices and other satanic rituals at the bohemian grove?

He knows what he is doing, he just acts like a retard so folks think he is a poor pawn......



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
So there are pictures of him, and other members of his family participating in satanic rituals? I'd be interested to see this evidence.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you will recall, that for those 50yrs, we were involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. They were trying to spread Communism, we were trying to stop the spread of Communism. Communism failed, as it was a terminally flawed system. It's easy to sit here and judge methods used, when the options generally were the lesser of two evils, Communism being the greater evil taking over 100 million lives, and oppressing countless others.


If you look further into history, for instance, the spanish american war, or the war IN the philipines. Imperialist tacticts as mentioned before have been in play and largely glossed over by North American media. AM i saying that communism was the best system? No. but whos to say that the system that replaces communism will be much better?

and what about the current times? these practises are still in play and with more force than ever. Communism fell 20+ years ago so why continue the destructive ways of the old imperialism?

Maybe because US leaders werent fighting communism because of a deep feeling of sympathy for the oppressed peoples of the USSR, Nicarauga, Chile, and other countries, but because the revolution attacked the very process of capital accumulation, and upwards redistribution of wealth.

Is it really so hard to believe that tthose in charge, those with all the wealth, property, and luxuries, are really not on our side? that they are playing for keeps and they are going after what you have?


Democracy is an invention of the people against imperialism, against greed and the wealthy land owners.

IF their reactionary response was because communism was such a threat to global democracy, then why did US leaders support despotic organisations such as Renamo in Mozabique?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
So there are pictures of him, and other members of his family participating in satanic rituals? I'd be interested to see this evidence.



hes referring to Alex Jones Screts of the bohemian grove video...

you cant make any faces out in that vid, you just have to jump to the conclusion that bush and co. are involved...



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Being a skeptical sorta fellow, I don't tend like to jump to conclusions, unless I see some strong evidence. Hearsay, randomly compiled non related facts, etc.. aren't very convincing to me.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
dont understand why bush, or even better AMERICA is always the brunt of everyones hatrid for the war in iraq...



why dont you bash the leaders of all the other countries who have troups in iraq? englad, austailia, etc....



Because they did not LEAD US TO WAR, they followed.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke


I find it hard to believe that he would kill 3000 americans in those buildings


We also found it hard to believe that the earth was not the center of the universe, still doesn't change the facts. I believe Helen Keller said it best,
"People do not like to think, thinking leads to conclusions and conclusions are not always plesant."



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Well wars has always been for some altruistic goal or that is what they seems to tells us they are during the very lacking history classes this nation have.

But beside fighting communist . . . of the spread of it. . .

Bush has started a new trend, he now is using wars in the pursue of control of the last oil reserves in the world.

Occurs we can always believe is for the good of the world and to take dictators away . . . but we know better.

Then he makes a clown of himself when doing interviews and having no clue of what he is doing in Iraq.


Bush, just say it out and loud We are in Iraq because the oil man, the oil do you get it



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Being a skeptical sorta fellow, I don't tend like to jump to conclusions, unless I see some strong evidence. Hearsay, randomly compiled non related facts, etc.. aren't very convincing to me.



sorry slightly confused, are you referring to my claims (capitalism, blah blah blah) or to the satanic thing?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The satanic thing. If there was reliable proof of this, it'd be plastered on every newspaper and TV news show, and pundits of all sorts would be talking about it on current events type shows. It seems like grasping at straws to me.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
agreed.

ive seen the vid myself and biggest prob i have with it is the fact that the footage is being shot from across the lake and all you can see if some robed figures with torches around a giant owl statue.

besides, what are the chances of Jone and company catching world leaders in the middle of this super secret "prayer circle" anyways?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The satanic thing. If there was reliable proof of this, it'd be plastered on every newspaper and TV news show,


Well Bush enjoy a daddy that has been very good at protecting his sons mischieves and records with the strictest privacy.

Something that no regular American citizen can do any more in American even when the constitution protect some of those rights.

But the Bush clan and associates do.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Hes either delusional or brilliant. I still havnt figured out which.



Well, he may be somewhat of both. The thing is,I have never claimed Bush to be a genius,he certainly isn't. However, he is a far cry from the "idiot" that the extrem left would have you believe. Bush has made a political career from people who have underestimated his intelligence. He thrives off of it.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
An eloquent public speaker, he is not.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
An eloquent public speaker, he is not.


No... Neither was Harry Truman or Thomas Jefferson. They say that Jefferson talked like a little girl... *Shrug* We have had many presidents that weren't very eloquent speakers. Hell, Clinton had a speech impediment to go along with his Arkansas' draw.... I mean... The only great speaker we have had for president in the last 30 years was Ronald Reagan.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Exactly- one's public speaking ability is not a direct reflection of their cognitive ability.







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join