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.

 

People say Bush should not apologize

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
That it was planned 2 days after September 11th.

It was actually planned before 9/11.


Solid Gold promise. The more intrusion into the middle east by our force and violence, the further our terrorist attacks will increase.

This, I believe with all my heart. In the long run, we've set ourselves up for more attacks. You can't threaten people, who are willing to die for their cause, with death. It doesn't work that way. Now, all of America is just sitting here waiting for the next impending attack. We all know it's coming, no matter what we do or don't do. This, I'm sure, most people agree on, regardless of which side you're on.


Also, by this rational, we should invade every tenth nation.

Exactly! China does horrible things too, but we're not going to # with them. There are many countries who are less than fair to their citizens. That's not our problem, and we shouldn't be making it our problem.


[Edited on 1-30-2004 by Satyr]




posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeniusSage
"By the way, what happened to good 'ol Saddam?"

yeah, i wonder what happened to good 'ol hitler aswell.


Hitler was an actual threat. He actually had weapons he could have used against America. He also killed himself rather than be captured.

Where's all the info that the capture of Saddam was supposed to bring? Once we got him, weren't the WMDs supposed to start flowing like the mighty Mississip?



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I'm sure it was planned before 9-11, but I am going on the statements made by Paul Wolfowitz as to the plan on how to sell the war to the U.S. people.

That planned was lined out on Sept. 13th 2001, along with the Afganistan and Iraqi timeline (who goes first).

I'm sure others will follow according to that timeline, but they have not reveiled the whole thing yet.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Also, the way to stop terror, is not to hunt down and kill the terrorists of today.

Terror is something that must be stopped by the roots, the source.

We must target terrorists of the future. We must not give them the reason to become terrorists.

If we invade, bomb, threaten, and cowboy around the world, we are effectively CREATING the terrorists.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The Bush Administration CLEARLY knew they were over exaggerating the threat of WMDs. In the build to war, they silenced any critic who disagreed with them.....why would they do this?

If they were really the "good" they claim to be, which is laughable by the way then they would of listened to every source to determine if Iraq had WMDs or not!

Are we forgetting that it was the Bush Administration who decided to stop UN inspections, since they were SO SURE that Iraq had WMDs.

LIES, LIES, LIES!

www.americanprogress.org...

Here is a link that shows all the intelligence the Bush Administration ignored in regards to Iraq not having WMDs.

Also before 9-11, Colin Powell and Condaliza Rice both stated Iraq was contained and not a threat.

So let me summerize this
The Bush Administration ignores a country that has nuclear capabilities (NK). They instead go after a falling regime that isn't a threat to its neighbors let alone a country a continent away. They ignore a country that is an ACTUAL threat to America, where the leader even says in clear words that they want war. They instead chose to invade the leader who is cooperating with the world community. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

And don't give me that Bush is trying to save the UN #! That is the most hypocritical statement you can say. He's trying to save the UN, by the defying the UN LAWS!!!

Its common sense to determine that we were MISLED. Can it be more obvious!



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

If we invade, bomb, threaten, and cowboy around the world, we are effectively CREATING the terrorists.


amen! since the cold war dried up, and the war on drugs has lost it's hype...they need some new threat to keep the masses in fear and willing to give up their civil rights (see: patriot act) and economic future (see: 477 billion dollar deficit).

come on people, say it with me;

i pledge allegiance to the companies
that run the united states of america
and to the republic, that used to be
one nation, under terrorist threat
with liberty and justice
for those that can afford it




posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   


i pledge allegiance to the companies
that run the united states of america
and to the republic, that used to be
one nation, under terrorist threat
with liberty and justice
for those that can afford it


AMEN! You said it! lol.

I think Bush Should step up to the plate and spit out the truth. More so I think the American public should force him to spit it out.

Deep



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Yeah Bush should tell the truth so that everyone else doesn't have to.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
What really ticks me off is alot of people who are blind out there (The people who don't what's really going on that is) thinks Bush did the right thing about to war with Iraq and didn't lie to us about WMD. So, IMO the majority of Americans are going to vote for Bush again. What does that mean? Bush is going to be our President for another 4 years. That is really going to scare me if that happens.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
MrM....
As everyone knows, absolute truth is not exclusive.
In such, the attribute of one being "blind" is not limited to just those who cannot see. Your comment is subjective, in that, one being "blind", in the case and usage you have given it in, implies that you, and others, 'must' have or 'most certainly' have the edge on "exclusive", eh?

'Perception' is different for all of us, and because many or some differ in your, and other's, "views" does not necessarily mean that someone is "blind".




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Seekerof,

I apologize for not being clear on what I mean by "blind." That may have been too big of a word to use. What I mean was there alot of those out there who I have personally spoken with who seem to believe in Bush no matter what he does. They say everything he has done so far, they agree with him and they will vote for him in the next election. That's all. Sorry once again.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
WOW!

Bush is the PRESIDENT, he is the highest level of government. The PRESIDENT did not always have the power to declare war (this used to have to go through Congress first, before it was changed by Dubya).

So in other words, your PRESIDENT can now declare war on a country, based on FALSE claims, and that costs THOUSANDS of lives, and he doesn't have to answer for anything. Peachy.

Yet Clinton LIES about an extramarital BJ and is impeached.

It doesn't MATTER if Bush knew every single detail (he obviously didn't seeing as how he's a frickin moron), he is the LEADER of the country and he must take RESPONSIBILITY for what happened. If there was an "intelligence failure" and Bush used that info without having it checked by underlings, it's HIS fault.

If the REASON for war is a mistake, the WAR is a mistake. The 500+ US soldiers died for a MISTAKE, and ditto for thousands of Iraqis.

The Bush Administration snubbed the US and invaded an almost DEFENSELESS country (as evidenced by the fact that the ground campaign took 3 days), and THEN found out after the fact that they were wrong about the reasons.

In other words, even though they doubted that the info was correct, they still took a chance and invaded.

Took a chance with the lives of the military, and the lives of Iraqis, certainly not their own.

How was Saddam a threat to world peace if he had no WMDs?

j



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I guess Clinton lied about Saddam having weapons, and people in his administration too.

Clinton for one make one HUGE mistake with the "Air Only" attack in Yugoslavia. But not apology there, which by the way, killed quite a few people.

Where was the outcry then?



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
should he apologize for something the CIA did? i say make the CIA apologize



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I guess Clinton lied about Saddam having weapons, and people in his administration too.

Clinton for one make one HUGE mistake with the "Air Only" attack in Yugoslavia. But not apology there, which by the way, killed quite a few people.

Where was the outcry then?


do you really think one justifies the other? because one person screwed up and didn't apoligize means no one has to apologize?


should he apologize for something the CIA did? i say make the CIA apologize


he's the president of the united states, he's responsible for dragging this country into war...if he really believes it is the CIA's fault and he was just an honest victim of bad intelligence then someone at the CIA needs to be fired...but that won't happen because even bush & co. don't want it with the CIA...and maybe, just maybe they really did use what they knew to be bad intelligence to make a war they've been planning for years.

::spelling edits::

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by enomus]



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I didn't say he should not admit being wrong. But apologizing means he did something wrong.

I say he admit being wrong flat out. Say "I was wrong about WMD"

But come on. The "LIES LIES LIES" is rediculous. I am saying that he did not lie due to the fact that Clinton used the same intel to bomb the living # out of Iraq.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
ok fair enough...but!!!
maybe the intel was correct when clinton was in office...maybe, but if it was wrong for clinton, bush shouldn't have fallen for the same wrong info...i don't think bush is as dumb as people like to think he is, i think he used intel he knew was bad to justify a war he's been planning since before 9/11 and that's what makes him a big far liar.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Bush is the PRESIDENT, he is the highest level of government. The PRESIDENT did not always have the power to declare war (this used to have to go through Congress first, before it was changed by Dubya).


No, the President doesn't have the sole responsibility of declaring war, we haven't actually "declared war" on anyone since WWII. Bush still had to get permission from congress for his war under the war powers act he cannot just go to war if he feels like it. Even though he lied to congress about his reasons for going to war..



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

WOW!

Bush is the PRESIDENT, he is the highest level of government. The PRESIDENT did not always have the power to declare war (this used to have to go through Congress first, before it was changed by Dubya).

So in other words, your PRESIDENT can now declare war on a country, based on FALSE claims, and that costs THOUSANDS of lives, and he doesn't have to answer for anything. Peachy.

Actually, he never officially declared war. (Correct me if I'm wrong) He can't. That still has to be done by congress. But, apparently, we don't need to declare anything anymore. We can just attack people and occupy their countries for as long as we like, even if there is no real justification. As we've all learned, a few rumors and some well placed propaganda is plenty.
Sure, Bush has made plenty of non-official declarations, but they're just lip service.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
well it used to be that the president could do that without a declaration of war, as we saw in vietnam..after that we had the war powers act which says

"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. "

Bush has gotten permission to do whatever he wants from congress, this they granted him based on his allegations of WMDs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join