Truth about Bush from Ex-Treasury Sec. PaulO'Neill

BT....
"Scott Ritter sure has been fully vetted, huh? I mean, there were a ton of allegations out of the woodwork when he called it straight."

"Called it straight".....when was that BT....just after his 1998 departure from UNSCOM and his reports to them and the US or after he received his $400,000 and then he changes his tune? You may think nothing of it BT, but its called lacking credibility. What, he and others wake up in the morning and flip a coin to figure on what 'story' they going to tell today or next year?
Yeah....Ritter definitely "called it straight".....wow.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Have a quick look at this:

"1998 Iraqi Liberation Act"

news.findlaw.com...

Read through it, take it in........ Then remind me what we were discussing in this thread again.

Maybe bite into this one a little, and see how it tastes:

www.cnn.com...


[Edited on 1/12/2004 by Seapeople]

He was on the National Security Council.

We were discussing a President that specifically campaigned against the issue of Nation Building and critisized Clinton/Gore for too many unnecessary policing efforts all over the world making America less safe, and spreading our military dangerously thin.... that within days of innaugeration did the exact opposite of all promises and started planning his version of upping the status quo he campaigned against to new levels while passing around ideas for dividing the spoils of a war he already decided was necessary.

No matter how you spin it....it still tastes like crap.

Oh, I see. Basically what you are saying is that it is ok for a democrat to engage in military action. It is OK for a democrat to actually pass a law that requires the United States to install a democratic government in Iraq. (conveniently near the end of his term in office) It is not OK for a conservative politician to do the same though. Thanks for clearing that up.

Seapeople,
You may wish or want to read my comments and those of others on what you posted in this ATSNN thread:

"NEWS: Iraq Invasion Planned Before 9/11"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



regards
seekerof

Wow, my apologies. I should read through this stuff better. You nailed the exact same things as I did, with better explanation.

You missed the part about lying about nation building just to win. I'm sure you missed it on purpose, so I won't bother to drill it in. Had he campaigned on how soft Clinton was, and a PROMISE to invade Iraq... then you'd have a better point. If he clearly knew job one was removing Saddam, don't you think that should be on the freaking platform? It's kind of important considering we're paying for it. He can 'win' saying I'll cut taxes, but hiding the real agenda to actually increase spending is okay with you?

Thank you for clearing that up. You like being lied to.

I'll even stand back from that statement a bit in light of the revelations confirming rampant suspicions that Bush isn't bright enough to lie. He believed his promises, but wasn't strong enough a leader to not allow his administration to be usurped.

After all, how could Bush know the PNAC had his whole administration planned for him. His first mistake was sitting in Crawford after a hard fought "victory" and letting Cheney cherry pick his cabinet. If you really like how things are going, don't even vote for Bush... write in Cheney/Rumsfeld.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by RANT]

somehow, I feel this will be old news soon, Paul O'Niell will be investigated, his credibility will be shot down and Bush will remain on top.

Is there any way to ensure that the media and Congress actually follow up on this issue.

Absolutely not. If public outrage mattered, then someone that 259 million Americans think should be in jail wouldn't be broadcasting to the 21 million that don't.

Dude! Where's my car?

us.f1.yahoofs.com...!+Photo+Album/bushbong.jpg?pfsKyAABR0AtpEbX>

Posted originally by rant:

"Thank you for clearing that up. You like being lied to."


Another quote comes to mind when I hear that.

"I did not have sexual relations with that women"


Now as I recall, back then, a presidents character had no bearing on his leadership skills. I am not defending Georgy. I am attacking the liberal double standards. Liberals follow there masters like sheep. Campaign on the issues. Never solve them. Instigate racism to gain political power. Then make claims of racism from elsewhere. (just one example) Never questioning. Never understanding.

How absolutely perfect and predictable of you. As I was typing "you must like being lied to" I almost typed your knee jerk Clinton response for you knowing it was sure to follow... the fact that you bring up Clinton's penis (like a well trained intern) and accusations of being SHEEPISH in the same kool-aid soaked breath is astounding. Yes, yes.... thank you oh non-sheep one for quoting Rush and Coulter to me. For you and you alone have lifted the veil of propaganda exposing who the REAL sheep are, who the REAL racists are, nay, the REAL nazis. Now awaken the rest of the masses from their dream... tell us about the War on Christianity... and how simple minded liberals are for spewing the rhetoric of their masters.

Got to run, I must go worship Al Franken and Mike Moore. Sheep that I be. If you had a clue what an idependent thought was, you'd realize most liberals don't give a damn about Hillary, George Clooney or any other straw man you erect to speak for me. Yet it seems I know your every argument and rebuttal by heart? Now how could THAT be?

B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a...

Oh I know, my savior Barbara Streisand told me. Best not speak to me of sheep. I like mutton, and will grill you.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by RANT]

It was predictable for one reason. I am right. No use denying the truth.

Yes, Clinton lied as did "No new taxes" Bush 41 before him, and "I can't recall" Reagen before him. "I have lusted in my heart" Carter's problem was NOT lying, but Ford and Nixon did it too well.

So what? I understand you said you aren't defending George (because he's indefensible) but how are Republicans any better historically at breaking from the herd and not having double standards?

Sorry to have flamed, but this SHOULD be about Bush... not Clinton's penis, not all liberals.... Bush.

If you'd like to discuss the rest, I'd be happy to join you in the mudpit.

Ritter said, *prior to the Iraq war built on false data & sold to the Congress & the public for which the Bush administration should be impeached*, that there were zero WMD matching the bill of good Bush was selling.
That is the case today. He is fully vetted. No incongruity.
Hans Blix said the same thing. The hundreds of US inspector searching for them .....well , you know.
It's a great Right Wing device to package a truth in a political wrapper, but after the covers pulled back, it stands on it's own merit.

Have a listen: www.abovetopsecret.com...

We have an entire party "bought" in following goose step behind Bush, from Administration officials who've sold the country out for Ideology to their congressional lackeys; Ritter is a league away more honest - his supposed pay day is out front for all to see, and 1998 to his last inspection had that good old thing called discovery occur in the interim. A big part of the misunderstanding is the moving target definition of WMD.

It is about time that someone from the adminstration started speaking the truth. Have seen an article this week on truthout.org about a Pentagon insider who says how things have become there since the Bush admin. Wish more would come out in the US media though. More is reported elsewhere. Wish more would come out about the Carlyle Group and Daddy Bush making a mint on munitions etc. Can only hope that the upcoming election isnt fixed (again) and we get a regime change!!!