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.


Just what have they done to deserve our trust? our respect?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:32 AM
Just what have they done to deserve our trust? our respect?

Its no secret on this board, I have a distain hatred for George and Richard. I cannot stand them, I can’t stand to LOOK at them, and I can’t stand to listen to them.. and I thank god every single day, for the fortunate fact that im not American… for the simple fact that I couldn’t handle, these man representing me on the WORLD STAGE.

What an embarrassment, what a total denial of dignity and respect one must force on himself by waving your little pro bush flag, or debating the finer points of WHY this war was needed, and WHY the elections ‘weren’t’ bought out.

Americans, you’re the greatest people on the planet, you achieved fetes no one dreamed of, yet you can’t evict a single man from a house?

Now, Id like to think im a realistic person face to face. Ill take someone for what they say to me, not how they look, not how they act. But how they respect me, and respect my thoughts. It’s safe to say I don’t hate anyone in my area, I trust people, and in turn they trust me.

So why is it, I have such a passionate hatred for this man? Such disgust for his morals and ethics?..

Now obviously, people have something concrete to backup the claims that he is a just, fair and honest leader. Someone whom deserves the respect of the world super power.. Fair enough… a good debate is a strong debate..

So, here is why I believe this president deserves to be
1. Impeached
2. Imprisoned
3. Tried for Criminal activities
4. Hung on request by an international tribunal

Why does bush DESERVE Impeachment

Impeachment, too many say it’s pointless, a waste of time and will take away much needed attention from other situations. Well, I agree to a point. It will take time, it will take attention away from other needed situations… and it will cost money.. But isn’t that a concept of all hard decisions? You think Normandy was quick, cheap and ill-devised?

I think impeachment is needed, because it’s what the LAW says. It’s the laws that govern the land, to keep society functioning. No one should ever disregard the law simply because its time consuming, costly or difficult. Laws protect the people from the maniacs, and this is a prime example.

MY Personal Reasons, why I believe he deserves the above:

He lied to the people
- Over too many things to list
He lied about September 11
- Over prior knowledge, the pentagon, prior trading, warnings
He lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction
- Telling the public he had evidence of WMD programmes
He lied about there being a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
- Telling the public he had evidence of a link
He knowingly ignored evidence stating his assertions on Iraq’s Al-Qaida link were incorrect
- From various intelligence officials within his administration
He knowingly ignored evidence stating his assertions on Iraq’s WMD accusation were incorrect
- Again from officials, example: Plame Affair & Nigeria documents
He failed to give evidence while under investigation
- To the sept11 commission and to the sacking of the attorneys investigation
He failed to protect the United States from a foreign threat
- By allowing the terrorists to strike

He knowingly ignored evidence of a foreign threat, for personal gain
- Knowing it would open the doors for Iraq
He allowed the murder of 3000 + American citizens
- By allowing Sept 11 to occur
He spied on his own citizens
- Through unwarranted wiretaps and audits
He ignored the constitution
- By allowing torture and spying
He wrote into law, new laws nullifying the constitution
- Nullifying his crimes, allowing spying and torture after the above occurred
He gave false evidence to allies
- Telling trusting allies he DID have evidence of Iraq-wmd-911 links
He fabricated evidence
- Of an Iraqi link, of wmds
He was complicit in revealing a secret agents identity
- In allowing Cheney to release secret information without punishment
He was complicit in unfairly dismissing lawyers from the administration
- By allowing Albert Gonzales to go unpunished for unfairly dismissing court appointed attorneys
He allowed torture
- Through water boarding and other techniques claimed in Iraq and Afghanistan
He allowed kidnapping
- By kidnapping people in multiple nations on choice
He allowed extraordinary rendition
- By transporting prisoners to nations for torture

The people NEED to impeach, it’s as simple as that.
NOT impeaching this criminal, says to the world, that the United States allows ruthless rogue leaders, so long as they aren’t involved or pushed into hardship. It shows the people don’t care what he does, or sends his military to do, so long as they can sit at home and watch it on the news.
That’s a very bad impression to leave on the citizens of other nations, especially Arab nations who can’t believe good men, are once again doing NOTHING!

Look at his smirk when he answers questions to reporters

Look at how he moves and shakes when asked a complicated question.

He knows he has to come up with a politically correct response that in no way shakes the foundation of lies he’s build the current situation up on.

Simple things,

-Like limiting any use of the Iraq WMD lie any more.
-Not talking about Saddam’s kangaroo court and execution
-Limit talking about 911, unless it’s at a forum where he can’t be questioned.
-Limit talking about the corporate entities operating in Iraq
-Implement executive privilege when answering questions about topics he has to take ownership for
-Limit talking about the elections

The less he says on record, the less he can reveal through stupidity and his inability to express logic. It’s obvious in his public display for the cameras everything he says and does has to be planned out, practiced and exercised to ensure nothing untoward leaks.

Real leaders speak from the heart, from the mind and from good morals. If you’re asked a question, you need to respond in what YOU believe. You’re the leader, you’re the decider. It’s obvious to me, there’s too much bush has to comprehend when talking, to many lies to consider before he answers. So he gives the common, no risk answers.

I’m sure many have heard of the website:

Where the number of added signatures is: 997897 that agree for the impeachment of Bush

The following is a list of reasons the people vote for the impeachment of President Bush:
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution…..
2) Lying to the people of the U.S…..
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians…..
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping …..
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq …..
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations…..
7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda …..
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law…..
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights…..
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere…..
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders …..
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution …..
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested…..
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States…..
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government. …..
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States…..
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina…..
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying …..
19) Refusal to provide information and records …..

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights …..

That list, says to me, time and cost shouldn’t be an argument in the debate for impeachment.
If trillions can be spent, disposing and trying a ruthless leader on the other side of the world, surely a fraction of the sum can be spent on a rogue leader STILL in power……..on our side of the world.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:32 AM
What has BUSH done to the CONSTITUION

How about the constitution?
What’s that line in the presidential 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.

Well, we can all excuse George for getting it wrong.
He does struggle at the best of times…
What GEORGE meant to say was

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 Re-Write and Ignore the Constitution of the United States and force its will on sovereign states..

After all, his hand is on a bible, and he is supposed to be speaking the truth.

First you need to understand how he see’s the constitution

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

"'I don’t give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.'
"'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.'
"'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!'"

The following are a few of the acts/laws president bush has pushed through into the United States.
Tell me, do you feel safer, secure and free?

The Patriot Acts I, II, III

• The government could bug, wiretap, or search anyone in America for up to 15 days without going to any court.

• The government could seize personal information about Americans (including credit information, educational transcripts, etc.) in a wide range of circumstances without the approval of any court.

• Individuals and groups which advocate Second Amendment rights could be classified as "foreign powers" and subjected to electronic surveillance for up to one year without the approval of any court.

• DSEA could allow members and supporters of gun rights organizations to be stripped of their citizenship, arrested and held indefinitely without charges, here or abroad, in secret at a secret location without access to an attorney or benefit of constitutional protections.

• Allows the federal government to create and sustain a DNA database of "suspected" terrorists, with the federal government exercising unfettered discretion over who is a "suspected" terrorist. Under this law, a "suspected" terrorist would be any person whom the U.S. Attorney General says is a "suspected" terrorist.

National Security Surveillance Act of 2006

Authorized by an executive order signed by President Bush in 2002, the extralegal spying program enables the NSA to engage in covert domestic surveillance of American citizens and foreign nationals. Revealed to the public last year by the New York Times, the NSA's controversial program has become the subject of contentious debate. After the Senate decided not to pursue an inquiry into the program at the insistence of vice president Cheney, the EFF and several other organizations filed suits against the government and the telecommunications companies that facilitated the program. The federal government tried to crush the litigation by invoking the state secrets privilege. Although the ACLU's case was dismissed, Judge Vaughn Walker rejected the state secrets argument, and decided to permit the EFF to pursue its case against AT&T. The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation lawsuit against the NSA was also permitted. Characterizing the program as unconstitutional, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered the NSA to halt unwarranted surveillance activity earlier this month.

"This bill is all about authorizing the president to invade the homes, e-mails and telephone conversations of American citizens in ways that are expressly forbidden by law," Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who serves as the committee's co-chairman, said in a statement Wednesday.

Critics also argued that the measure erodes Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing the FISA court to issue blanket approval for an entire surveillance program, rather than for individual, targeted wiretaps.

Posse Comitatus Act

Congress passed a controversial bill which grants the President the right to commandeer Federal or even state National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States. This bill, entitled the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR), contains a provision, (Section 1076) which allows the President to:
“...employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to...
1. restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States..., where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order;
2. suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy...” [3]
Senator Patrick Leahy and others have condemned Section 1076 because it effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. 331-335) and gives the President the legal ability to define under what conditions martial law may be declared. [4]

Military Commissions Act of 2006
The Insurrection Act

n a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

Executive Order (EO) 13303

An extraordinary Presidential Executive Order, signed into law by President Bush on May 22 but kept out of the pages of the US media, further underscores the real motivations behind the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Ostensibly drawn up in order to protect Iraq’s oil wealth, Executive Order (EO) 13303, “Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest”, provides unlimited authority for US corporations to loot Iraqi oil and grants them permanent immunity from any legal actions over the consequences.
EO 13303 begins with a declaration that the possibility of future legal claims on Iraq’s oil wealth constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” It goes on to state that “any ... judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void” with regard to the Development Fund for Iraq, as well as for any commercial operation conducted by US corporations involved in the Iraqi oil industry.
Section 1(b) of the EO eliminates all judicial process for “all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.”

Didn’t your forefathers DIE to create and preserve this marvelous piece of guidance?

Hell id be pissed if someone re-wrote my shopping list, let alone my way of life.
Some of you mustn’t care for it too much; this must be why you argue ‘For Bush’

Just because there’s enough reason for impeachment, and the hazing of your constitution, im sure some people would brush it off as paranoid psychosis… and still say he’s a strong and just leader.

WHAT has Bush done, to get us in IRAQ

Its simple.
He lied.
He lied, and he was applauded by those who would profit from his lies.

Iraq’s been going on for what, 5 straight years?
4000 troops have died, estimates of civilian fatalities are from 90,000 – 600,000…. Of course remembering the UNITED STATES official line on civilians
‘’ We don’t do body counts ‘’

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:33 AM
My biggest problem with Iraq and Bush, is that.. He knows Iraq did nothing.
He knows there was no link and that no matter what, once he was convinced by his peers and friends it was a smart move financially and corporately to take on Iraq, he did everything possible to ensure it happens.

-Faking evidence
Phone Calls, Sat Images, Defector statements
-Ignoring the United Nations
Pleas for time, calls for restraint, evidence of NO WMD Program
-Dismissing talks for peace
Saddam requesting direct dialogue for talks
-Ignoring statements of incorrect evidence
Valerie Plame
-Removing officials who expressed DOUBT over evidence
Sackings, Resignations

My official line on Iraq is that you cannot have undeniable evidence of a weapons program that doesn’t exist. And if you say you do, and it turns out there isn’t one, you’re flat out lying. And there’s no denying that.

We were told, at the order of GW Bush the following statements about Iraq:

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

And what turned out to be the truth?

0 weapons
0 stockpiles
0 production capability
0 unmanned flying drones
0 nuclear programmes
0 nuclear weapons

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

So, After this trillion dollar mission to rid the world of an evil man, possessing… nothing but conventional weapons… what have we done for AMERICA’S Image around the world.

1. The middle east see’s as an occupying nation, as a empire stretching its reach
2. We’ve shown our complete and utter ignorance for international law
3. We show how to plunder under the guise of liberation
4. We’ve shown the ‘perfect murder’ concept for genocide. – Blame the terrorists

On top of that, we’ve GIVEN all fanatics a REAL reason to actually hate us. Support for Israel, trade embargoes, lifestyle were all made up excuses to get a message across.
Release these prisoners; stop supporting the militia’s here;, stop funding them there…

Now, they can actually fight for a cause, for a reason. The freedom of Iraq.

We’ve given terrorists and fanatics around the world a cause for their fight.

George continually says:

America is safer

When the reality is the EXACT opposite.

You cannot murder and maim hundreds of thousands without pissing off a few people.

What are Bush’s CORPORATE ties?

But what about the Corporate side of Iraq?

"The Bush-Cheney team have turned the United States into a family business," says Harvey Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War (Seven Stories Press, 2000). "That's why we haven't seen Cheney - he's cutting deals with his old buddies who gave him a multimillion-dollar golden handshake. Have they no grace, no shame, no common sense? Why don't they just have Enron run America? Or have Zapata Petroleum (George W. Bush's failed oil-exploration venture) build a pipeline across Afghanistan?"

How is it, large numbers of Bush supporters from the election process won major contracts in Iraq?
The basic fact is, George bush opened Iraq to his corporate factions, to rape and pillage as much natural resources and American Tax dollars as possible. His family has a long history of corruption and greed within the United States, George was just the first person whom had the balls and the backing to actually act on his sins.

Of those TRILLIONS being spent, how much of it has gone into the CEO’s pockets?

CACI and Titan

In early 2005 CIA officials told the Washington Post that at least 50 percent of its estimated $40 billion budget for that year would go to private contractors, an astonishing figure that suggests that concerns raised about outsourcing intelligence have barely registered at the policymaking levels.

[ex/] The San Francisco-based construction and engineering giant received one of the largest no-bid contracts -- worth $2.4 billion -- to help coordinate and rebuild a large part of Iraq's infrastructure. But the company's reconstruction failures range from shoddy school repairs to failing to finish a large hospital in Basra on time and within budget.

Aegis Defense Services

The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates 48,000 private security and military contractors (PMCs) are stationed in Iraq. The Pentagon's insistence on keeping a lid on military force requirements (thereby avoiding the need for a draft) is one reason for that astronomical growth, which has boosted the fortunes of the "corporate warriors" so much that observers project the industry will be a $200 billion per year business by 2010.

Custer Battles

In March, Custer Battles became the first Iraq occupation contractor to be found guilty of fraud. A jury ordered the company to pay more than $10 million in damages for 37 counts of fraud, including false billing. In August, however, the judge in the case dismissed most of the charges on a technicality, ruling that since the Coalition Provisional Authority was not strictly part of the U.S. government, there is no basis for the claim under U.S. law. Custer Battles' attorney Robert Rhoad says the company's owners were "ecstatic" about the decision, adding that "there simply was no evidence of fraud or an intent to defraud."

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:33 AM

Halliburton is under Justice Department Securities and Exchange Commission investigation over allegations of improper dealings in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria," Whitley Strieber wrote March 12, 2007.

A "newly unearthed" March 2003 "Pentagon e-mail says action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was 'coordinated' with Cheney's office. Cheney was chief executive officer of the oilfield services giant from 1995 until he joined George W. Bush's presidential ticket in 2000."
"The e-mail, reported by Time magazine [in its June 7, 2004, Issue], provided 'clear evidence' of a relationship between Cheney and multibillion-dollar contracts Halliburton has received for rebuilding Iraq, Sen. Patrick Leahy said," according to Reuters. "'It totally contradicts the vice president's previous assertions of having no contact' with federal officials about Halliburton's Iraq deals, Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said in a conference call set up by John Kerry's presidential campaign. 'It would be irresponsible not to hold hearings.'"

Nour USA Ltd.Incorporated shortly after the war began, Nour has received $400 million in Iraq contracts, including an $80 million contract to provide oil pipeline security that critics say came through the assistance of Ahmed Chalabi, Iraq's No. 1 opportunist, who was influential in dragging the United States into the current quagmire with misleading assertions about WMDs.

What about them all, What corporate ties do the Bush Admin have, to entities operating in Iraq?

AS the below shows, George is quite happy cutting funding from AMERICA, and providing it for his corporate cronies..

President Bush plans to propose a $2.7 trillion budget tomorrow that would shrink most parts of the government unrelated to the nation's security while slowing spending on Medicare by $36 billion during the next five years, according to White House documents. The spending plan Bush is to recommend to Congress will call for the elimination or reduction of 141 programs -- for a savings of $14.5 billion

Are the below ties the ones receiving the money, normal Americans should be getting?

Several of CACI's top management are involved with policy and decision making within the current Bush administration, or have significant ties to the current Pentagon.

Herbert W. Anderson (Outside Director) - In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed Mr. Anderson as a principal member of the President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee. He currently serves as a member of the Secretary of the Air Force Advisory Group. Mr. Anderson is a former member of the Defense Science Board, the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association Board, and as a former subcommittee board member of the Aerospace Industries Association.
Barbara A. McNamara (Outside Director) - served as NSA's Special U.S. Liaison Officer in London, England until August 2003. She was responsible for representing NSA in its relationships with United Kingdom authorities including the Government Communications Headquarters, the cryptologic organization of the UK. From 1997 to 2000 Ms. McNamara was Deputy Director of NSA. From 1995 to 1997 she was Deputy Director of Operations for NSA. Prior assignments include Executive Director of NSA/Central Security Services (CSS) and NSA/CSS Representative to the DoD.
Arthur L. Money (Outside Director) - served as Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence from 1999 to 2001. He was DoD Chief Information Officer from 1998 to 2001 and Senior Civilian Official, Office of the ASD, from 1998 to 1999. In the Air Force, Mr. Money served as Assistant Secretary for Research Development and Acquisition, and Chief Information Officer.
Gen. Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.) (Outside Director) - currently a Fellow at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a federally chartered research center providing operations, technical, management and information systems analysis for the DoD and other government agencies.

For a complete run down on the corporate contracts, go to:

What has BUSH done about the OIL

And what about the OIL?
The Vice President, Dick Cheney held an Energy Task force meeting prior to September 11, that showed detailed maps of Iraq’s OIL Fields, and a document stating ‘’ possible suitors for Iraqi oil ‘’

Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force appeared to have some interest in early 2001 in Iraq's oil industry, including which foreign companies were pursuing business there, according to documents released Friday by a private watchdog group.
Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department papers that included a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled "Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."
The papers also included a detailed map of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates and a list of oil and gas development projects in those two countries.
The papers were dated early March 2001, about two months before the Cheney energy task force completed and announced its report on the administration's energy needs and future energy agenda.

Bush said in his speech in March when the bombing began
‘’ Do not touch the oil ‘’

Just what exactly do you think he meant?

We can’t get electricity up, nor water, but we can secure and build oil stations.

As Alangreenspan said

‘’ The Iraq war is about OIL ‘’

What has BUSH done to the TROOPS?

- Conditions
- Armour/Materials
- Benefits back home
- Lying to them

WASHINGTON — National Guardsmen and reservists who are injured on active duty face daunting and sometimes insurmountable hurdles to get medical care, soldiers and military officials told a congressional panel Thursday.

• The GAO said that soldiers, including many with severe injuries, are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.
• Injured soldiers sometimes have to pay their own medical bills or go into debt because their active-duty tours end and they are physically unable to go back to their civilian jobs.
• As recently as April, more than one-third of injured soldiers who applied to have their benefits extended were denied.

He sends his men overseas to fight his corporate war, he spends trillions for his friends, yet cuts benefits for the returning men and women of the fighting force?

The U.S. House of Representatives approved billions of dollars in cuts to veterans' programs over the next 10 years—on the same day it unanimously passed a resolution of “unequivocal support” for the nation's troops overseas. Proposed by President Bush as part of his 2004 budget plan, the reductions—estimated at $28 billion—would erode health-care benefits already stretched by other budget shortfalls, raise costs, and decrease veterans' access to medical care.

Bush to Cut Veterans' Benefits
Bush plans to cut funding for veterans’ health care over the next few years, yes this is while an increasing number of troops are returning home wounded from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President is pushing these cuts to fulfill his pledge to “balance the budget by 2012,” which is a shell game in itself.
“Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter,” according to a report by the AP.

What has BUSH done TO Iraq?

Words aren’t needed, pictures are fine.
This is what Bush has done to Iraq.

And he’s also littered the ground with unexploded ordinance

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:33 AM
How has BUSH HANDLED Investigations

Isnt the president meant to be transparent, meant to answer to the people?
So why does bush always find a reason not to answer under oath, why does he force people not to testify? Whats with the executive privelage.

George, if you have nothing to hide, why hide?

The following is how Bush and Cheney handle investigations:

George Bush is blocking a full public inquiry into 9-11. Richard Cheney threatens Democrats to keep quiet. "Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the [war on terrorism]."

Cheney admitted "he would advise President Bush not to turn over to Congress the August intelligence briefing that warned that terrorists were interested in hijacking airplanes, and he insisted that the investigation into Sept. 11 should be handled by the Congressional intelligence committees, not an independent commission

WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is urging a former White House political director to ignore a subpoena and not testify before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors, her lawyer says.
The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to hear from Sara Taylor at its hearing Wednesday and she is willing to talk. Testifying, however, would defy the wishes of the president, “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,” lawyer W. Neil Eggleston said.

How has Bush damaged the world financial system?

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

As soon as the US went to war, the government pushed to make credit EASILY available, thus propping up the markets that were cash strapped.
More people jumped into debt, more people willingly took 2nd mortgages, massive loans etc etc. This funded the economy, but once the war dragged on longer than the predicted months to a year time frame, expenses massively outweighed revenue.
We weren’t making money from Iraqi oil in time to fund the Iraq war, and to date we still aren’t.
As soon as we started PUMPING hundreds of billions into the world, our money DEVALUED!
OIL became more expensive too, because it took MORE of our dollars to buy a barrel.
This hits the economy all over.
Also, you do not, I say again DO NOT institute TAX CUTS During a war.
You need to FUND this war, and handing more money to the people doesn’t work.

ONE OF BRITAIN'S largest unions condemned as "obscene" yesterday a report by business leaders which claimed the economy would benefit from a short war with Iraq.
John Edmonds, general secretary of the giant GMB union, attacked the study by the Institute of Directors (IoD), which said a short war would end damaging uncertainty in the stock markets.

But the report warned that a prolonged conflict, cuts in oil production and diplomatic crises for the West would have severe economic consequences.

So what type of future has Bush Ensured for the world..

Wow, that’s quite a list. Sometimes I struggle to understand just why some people still support this man?
Iraq is never going to be the same….. its destroyed, it’s a humanitarian disaster…. Disease, famine, death…….
How about the economy? You think trillions of dollars will be replaced in a few years?... try a few decades..
What about the veterans, disabled, maimed, unable to look after themselves… facing their cuts in benefits and their post traumatic stress….
How about Americas standing the world?... you think the allies and neutrals will ever follow the United States again? Or back them up when something happens?
How many nations will offer to send air packages now?
Will anyone forgive him for allowing 911?
Will anyone have any more faith in the electoral process being it was so easy for bush to purchase the presidency?
What happens the next time a major incident occurs, who will take Bushes laws, his powers?

George, and CO


posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:41 AM

Greatest political assault I've ever seen
And perfectly justified.

Bush is part of a cabal of people who have told more lies, killed more people and have more money than the rest of us can even imagine. He is by comparison a complete alien to the average American citizen, yet because he can fake a southern accent and sway fickle-minded people with pre-written speeches... he manages to convince some of the public that he is for us.

He is against us. He is against life. And so is the organization of satanists from which crawled.

Excellent thread. Starred, flagged.

top topics

log in