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.

 

Lying For A Living

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It's incredible how many (now documented) lies the current administration has told and been allowed to get away with. I thought Clinton's crew was bad. They didn't have anything on BushCo. I never thought I'd see a more corrupt administration than Clinton's. Never say never. Here's a nice little list of whoppers for your perusal.


Lying for a Living

by Harry Browne

December 31, 2003

The Bush administration lied to the American people about many things in order to drag America into a war against a country that posed no threat whatsoever to it.

The biggest lie, of course, was the idea that Iraq had so-called "weapons of mass destruction" (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) that could kill millions of Americans.

Now that it’s evident that there were no such weapons, the war hawks claim that George Bush never really said the Iraqi threat was imminent. In fact, he supposedly said precisely the opposite — that we must stop Saddam Hussein before he can pose a threat to the United States.

In fact, on October 7, 2002, George Bush said to a cheering crowd in Cincinnati:

Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

See! He didn’t say Hussein was an imminent threat — only that we must stop him before he becomes a threat.

Unfortunately, for the war hawks, that isn’t what Bush meant — as is evident when that statement is placed in its original context:

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril." [italics added]

Bush said that we can’t wait for the "actual firing of weapons" before responding. He didn’t say we have to respond before the weapons are developed.

If that doesn’t convince you that George Bush said Hussein already had weapons that posed a threat, try looking at just some of the statements made by various members of the Bush administration, to wit:

Statements by George Bush

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002
the rest: www.harrybrowne.org...

Bush should be impeached.
At the least.




posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Please read the UN resolutions in the links, This editorial says it better than anyone else.


From Neil Boortz website,

The big news over the weekend is that long-lasting temper tantrum that Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, put in writing in his new book. O'Neill stalked away from the Beltway and back to Pittsburgh a while back after getting the pink slip from his boss.

I guess the part of O'Neill's book that the media is going to obsess over the most would be that statement that the Bush White House was drawing up plans for regime change in Iraq during Bush's first year in office ... which would be months before 9/11.

Wow ... pretty powerful stuff, isn't it? Old Paul is really stirrin' the puddin' now, and the Democrats are just loving it.

Hold on a minute. Is this really such a big deal? The informed rational person would be more concerned if he learned that the Bush White House was not drafting those plans. Now that would be news!

Bulletin: Bill Clinton's White House also had operational plans for the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam Hussein. Regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy from about 1997 on. Let's see if Brokaw shares that little bit of news with you this week.

Over the weekend I sat down and read a few documents that you might find interesting. United Nations resolutions. More particularly, UN Resolution Numbers #678 www.un.org... #687 www.un.org... and #1441 www.un.org... Just click on the resolution number and you can read them for yourself if you like. Maybe you ought to just go ahead and do that right now so that you can be sure I'm not lying to you. You know how us "neocons" will lie about something like this, don't you? But ... If you're not so inclined, you can just listen to my show today and I'll give you a quick rundown on what you'll find in these UN Resolutions.

Sadly, there are a few folks out there who read the Nuze every day who can't hear the show. For you, this briefest of explanations:

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.

Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.

Back to Paul O'Neill's claim that our mean, spiteful and inattentive president was making plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Two words: So what? So was Bill Clinton! Recognizing Saddam for what he is, taking into account his past attempts to build nuclear weapons, his invasion of Kuwait, and his gassing of tens of thousands of his own people, how could the United States not develop a working plan for the invasion of Iraq. Did Bush have any reason to expect that Saddam was going to see the light and toe the UN line? Hardly. Years of appeasement and UN inaction had emboldened Hussein. He was more dangerous than ever, and it would have been presidential malfeasance not to have a working plan to take him out if the need arose.
The hatred of George Bush in our mainstream media is strong. Accordingly, O'Neill's book (out this week) is being greeted as a 100% fact-based truth-telling document. Just another case of lazy journalists letting their socialist political leanings get in the way of objectivity.

Some of O'Neill's other pearls of wisdom that have his panties in a knot: the tax cuts were breaking the budget and there was no justification for invading Iraq because Saddam was not a threat to anyone, and everything was just hunky-dory in Iraq. Well isn't that nice. Of course, tax cuts don't create deficits, spending does, and the current economic recovery is being driven by the very tax cuts O'Neill is whining about. As for Saddam's WMD, he had them, used them, and Danish troops have discovered a cache of mortar shells in Iraq believed to contain chemical agents.

But back to O'Neill's bombshell charge .. that George Bush was making plans to oust Saddam Hussein almost as soon as he got into the White House. This is Paul O'Neill's moment of true fame. He has startled a nation and thrilled the left with his gutsy revelation that George Bush was actually doing his job!

Only after eight years of Bill Clinton could such a revelation become a news story.

Now if you've really read the resolutions, can you still support your assertions with fact not cojecture ?

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Phoenix][links]

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
How about addressing the lies told by this administration rather than shifting the subject to resolutions. I appreciate the documentation, but discussing the resolutions doesn't answer the myriad lies.


Originally posted by Phoenix
Please read the UN resolutions in the links, This editorial says it better than anyone else.


From Neil Boortz website,

The big news over the weekend is that long-lasting temper tantrum that Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, put in writing in his new book. O'Neill stalked away from the Beltway and back to Pittsburgh a while back after getting the pink slip from his boss.

Temper tantrum? Who is claiming this? That is merely a weak attempt by the administration to make O'Neil out to be the bad guy. Characterize telling the truth however you want. He doesn't strike me as the man they're trying to portray. Actually, I find that laughable. But, hey - if you wanna swallow what the mainstream media and white house are telling you, then by all means, believe it.

I guess the part of O'Neill's book that the media is going to obsess over the most would be that statement that the Bush White House was drawing up plans for regime change in Iraq during Bush's first year in office ... which would be months before 9/11.

And why not? That's just more proof that the Bush administration are consummate and congenital liars. Just like Clinton was and is.

Wow ... pretty powerful stuff, isn't it? Old Paul is really stirrin' the puddin' now, and the Democrats are just loving it.

Pretty weak, actually.

Hold on a minute. Is this really such a big deal? The informed rational person would be more concerned if he learned that the Bush White House was not drafting those plans. Now that would be news!

Taking the nation to war illegally, after lying to the whole world in the State of the Union speech is a very big deal. If Clinton had pulled that, he would have been impeached. Why do so many Republicans have such a bad memory?

Bulletin: Bill Clinton's White House also had operational plans for the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam Hussein. Regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy from about 1997 on. Let's see if Brokaw shares that little bit of news with you this week.

Hello? Anyone whose ever served in the government/military, at least, knows this. There is a huge difference between operational plans and plans for pre-emptive war.

Over the weekend I sat down and read a few documents that you might find interesting. United Nations resolutions. More particularly, UN Resolution Numbers #678 www.un.org... #687 www.un.org... and #1441 www.un.org... Just click on the resolution number and you can read them for yourself if you like. Maybe you ought to just go ahead and do that right now so that you can be sure I'm not lying to you. You know how us "neocons" will lie about something like this, don't you? But ... If you're not so inclined, you can just listen to my show today and I'll give you a quick rundown on what you'll find in these UN Resolutions.

Sadly, there are a few folks out there who read the Nuze every day who can't hear the show. For you, this briefest of explanations:

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.

Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

As a soldier who was there, and someone who wholeheartedly supported Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf's position at the time, I've always said we should've taken Baghdad at the time. This is all beside the point of the fact that Bush and his crew have lied through their teeth over the invasion of Iraq. The plans were drawn up by the neo cons in the mid-90's (beginning in the early 90's with the rejected Clean Break Strategy). Bill Clinton wasn't interested in it, either, for the record. It wasn't until Bush took over in 2000 that the plan was put into action. Bush: Explore how we can move toward this objective... It was NOT 9-11, and it was NOT any kind of imminent threat. We had Iraq contained to the inch.

Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Back to Paul O'Neill's claim that our mean, spiteful and inattentive president was making plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Two words: So what? So was Bill Clinton! Recognizing Saddam for what he is, taking into account his past attempts to build nuclear weapons, his invasion of Kuwait, and his gassing of tens of thousands of his own people, how could the United States not develop a working plan for the invasion of Iraq. Did Bush have any reason to expect that Saddam was going to see the light and toe the UN line? Hardly. Years of appeasement and UN inaction had emboldened Hussein.

I have to stop you right here, sport. This is all verbatim rhetoric that you've swallowed down through the years. Come up with your own ideas. That are applicable to today's reality, I might add.

He was more dangerous than ever,

You must be inside that bizarre parallel universe shared by BushCo and Blair. One word: Laughable.

and it would have been presidential malfeasance not to have a working plan to take him out if the need arose.

Again, operational plans have nothing to do with a president. The Pentagon creates them by scenario. Every administration has them.

The hatred of George Bush in our mainstream media is strong. Accordingly, O'Neill's book (out this week) is being greeted as a 100% fact-based truth-telling document. Just another case of lazy journalists letting their socialist political leanings get in the way of objectivity.

Again, pure rhetoric. If you had a true concept of the mainstream media, you would understand that it is corporate, hence, profit driven and owned by only 5 to 7 companies. The mainstream media's only bias is to the elites. Take that to the bank. Hatred for Bush? Did you just wake up, or something? You must not have been around during Clinton's two terms. They hammered him endlessly (although, it was more fluff than of true substance). Bush has been treated more fairly and with kid gloves by the media than any president I can think of. The corporate elites who own the big news conglomerates have got his back.

Some of O'Neill's other pearls of wisdom that have his panties in a knot: the tax cuts were breaking the budget

O'Neil was wise. Every American should have their 'panties in a knot' over this blatant fiscal irresponsibility and CRONYISM. Anyone who tells the big guys in this administration the truth, from the Pentagon to the White House, gets fired or moved out of the loop. They're all YES MEN or they're gone. Yessuh, that's definitely the quality I want in U.S. leadership. NOT.

and there was no justification for invading Iraq because Saddam was not a threat to anyone, and everything was just hunky-dory in Iraq.

There are NO weapons of mass destruction.
There are NO weapons of mass destruction.
There were NO weapons of mass destruction.
There was NO threat to the security of United States other than the possibility of OPEC switching trade currency to the EURO.


Well isn't that nice. Of course, tax cuts don't create deficits, spending does, and the current economic recovery is being driven by the very tax cuts O'Neill is whining about.

Current economic recovery? So you're swallowing that load, too, huh? Not the least bit surprising. Telling the truth is a far cry from whining.

As for Saddam's WMD, he had them, used them,

Yeah, BEFORE the Gulf war. Oh, and by the way, it would be so much fun to see Saddam go to trial at the Hague. The French lawyer who wants to defend him is chomping at the bit to subpoena Cheney, Bush I, Rumsfeld and President Bush, to name a few, to question them over just what their relationship was to Saddam in the lead up to the Gulf war and to shed light on just what all we supplied the monster with. Here's a hint - that ain't never gonna happen.

and Danish troops have discovered a cache of mortar shells in Iraq believed to contain chemical agents.

Uh, believed to be left over from the Iran-Iraq war.

But back to O'Neill's bombshell charge .. that George Bush was making plans to oust Saddam Hussein almost as soon as he got into the White House. This is Paul O'Neill's moment of true fame. He has startled a nation and thrilled the left with his gutsy revelation that George Bush was actually doing his job!

You have little knowledge of O'Neil, based on the above paragraph. Moment of fame? As if Paul O'Neil needs a moment of fame. I'm sure he could care less. The only reason he probably did the CBS interview was to place himself directly in the spotlight as a deterrent to threats on his person. The more people who know about his allegations, the harder it is for the administration to cause him damage or harm.

Only after eight years of Bill Clinton could such a revelation become a news story.

Now if you've really read the resolutions, can you still support your assertions with fact not cojecture ?

I stand by every last assertion I have made here. Now, would you like to address the myriad lies Bush and his cronies have proffered? You can't. No one can justify it.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Phoenix][links]

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
ECC, lol- we can agree to disagree, however as I do have to do some work this week and will need to get to weekend to give you the proper answer you deserve - please be patient!



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
HARRY BROWNE in 2004!!!

Go libertarians, the true party for freedom!



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join