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.

 

Did Bush terrorize his own people?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I make it known that Bush has earned my ire during Residency. With that being said, you can and probably will question my objectivity in this matter. What I find is that he truly did terrorize the USofA.

Our war with Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al-Qaede is justifiable. I am one of the people that believe we should turn that whole area into a parking lot. I don't subscribe to thinking that we planned the attacks of 9-11 or directly funded it. I think there were major intelligence foul ups involved, but directly helping these attacks, no. That part, IMO, was just gross incompetence.

The terrorizing that I am refering to is in the way that Bush and his administration led people into supporting this war in Iraq. I believe the point of many key speeches were not to inspire or draw in support to the war, but rather scare the people into supporting the efforts. I don't fully disagree with the war, but I don't think we would have went without people having WMDs on the tip of their tongue. The typical response to this thinking is "WMDs were not the only reason we went to war." Fine, I will give that one to you. That wasn't the only reason for war. But, it was the selling point. It was the rallying cry for this war. It was for the people to come to arms and defend our nation against this oppresive regime and safeguard against WMDs. Here is some quotes:


"For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country."

"Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people."

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands"

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida."

"It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

"This dictator, who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages - leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured."

"International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape"

"America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies."


To this date nothing has been found. That was all from the SotU Adress of 2003. Many of the claims he has made have been debunked or stretching the truth. Anywho...




posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK


The terrorizing that I am refering to is in the way that Bush and his administration led people into supporting this war in Iraq. I believe the point of many key speeches were not to inspire or draw in support to the war, but rather scare the people into supporting the efforts.


Yes, Bush has used terror as akey to many of his policies and those lies you listed down are just the tip of the iceberg. There was no threat from Iraq and the threat of terror is greatly exaggerated for public support, it's how the government spin machine works. We have been led into unjust wars and dangerous foriegn/domestic policy based on lies and spin or 'the war on terror'.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
In such case, you forgot to mention these:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq".

"The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N."

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors."

"In short, the inspectors are saying...their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors..Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now."

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past... If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed."

"We are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons." (for which, prophetically, this has or has not come true).

"Our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses... First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people".

"We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt........we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. When we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."



Interesting...........
Did Bush say all that, too?




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Yes, the Bush administration has used terror tactics on the US people, causing fear in order to bring in the Patriot Acts and other curbs on freedom.

However, the more people realise this, the more danger of more 'Terrorist acts' on US soil. Northwoods has been mentioned many times here in ATS, but in case you are unaware of it, I include a link to the relevant information.

The Northwoods Document



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The Bush Doctrine essentially is to bring peace to the Middle East. Several countries are already willing to forego building weapons of mass destruction in fear they will be next on the list after the upcoming election. I know there is no way to convince Bush-haters of this, but the fact is that we are better off without the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein.

John Kerry has stated in an interview with the Harvard Crimson that the only way he, as President of the U.S., would go to war is with the permission of the United Nations. Has anyone noticed that the U.N. is populated with enemies of the U.S.?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
As per my initial post, the tone for "terrorizing the American people" was set long before this President took office.
Even before this fool (see below to identity of 'fool') mentioned his comments that I used above and ironically, and unoticed by some here, was given in the rhetoric speech by none other than Mr. Clinton concerning Iraq:
"Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike"
www.cnn.com...




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
And...?

Repeat after me. Wrong is wrong is wrong.

Drop one of gas, chemical, or anything else hasn't been found. Why bother with Clinton. I think his reasonings were to pull focus off of the White House.

Now we're dealing with a new asshole. Granted, he happens to be on your side, but admit it; he was wrong.

I don't care the reason. He was #ing wrong. Spin it all you want, GWB was wrong.

He terrorized people into believing that Iraq posed a threat to the US with weapons laced with TERROR.

Seekerof, you cannot honestly buy into everything that this administration does/says. You seem way to smart to do that.

I don't disagree with the war, BUT I disagree with the tactics that the administration used to justify the war.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Seekerof: Haha.

"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. When we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."

And the enemy of peace is Saddam Hussein, so let's go BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF HIS COUNTRY! Okay, he hasn't done anything particularly nasty LATELY, and we're not 100% sure he actually DOES possess any WMD's and even if he did he would have no way to deliver them to the US mainland. But he hates us. For NO REASON other than that he is an evil maniac. I mean, how can you hate us? We are American! Woowoo!

Okay, so maybe even his neighbours aren't particularly concerned that he's a threat either. But, you know, we have some, uh, pretty solid evidence. Like, almost ironclad, if you look at it real fast.

And, just as America has "often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope", we are going to administer some loving "community and hope" by invading Iraq and "accidentally" killing, oh, let's say 10,000 civilians while we mop up Saddam's laughable military. It's certainly NOT Chaos And Fear! Although I think we ought to call the bombing of Baghdad (a city of 4 million people) OPERATION SHOCK AND AWE. Not as good as Operation Community And Hope, but just you watch how those Eye-rackis enjoy all that heavy ordnance dropping on them. No electricity or clean water for a few months after that! Yeehaw!

Oh yeah, and if we roll into Baghdad in only 48 hours, with little to no resistance, and you wonder to yourself, "Hey, how could they be a threat to the US when they get totally smoked in less than 3 days by a portion of our military? And they didn't even use any WMDs as a last resort?"

Well that's a great question, and my answer to you is, OMIGOD THREAT LEVEL ORANGE, GO GET SOME DUCT TAPE, WE'VE OVERHEARD "CHATTER".


Ack! Pfft!



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The daily I hate Bush post!

what took so long anyways? I've been waiting all day long to rehash this argument one more time!

until the day they can put in a Democrat that will be a carbon copy so that their friends and relatives in socialism can get jobs again.

maybe I will start a 'I hate Quebec thread everyday?'



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Neo, true or false? Did he terrorize the people into believing that Iraq posed a serious threat to America.

In my opinion, he and his adminstration scared people into thinking that Saddam posed this grave threat. After all, he had weapons of mass destruction laced with TERROR. He was in cahoots with Osama. He was the most oppresive dictator ever. All three of those are wrong. But that didn't stop him and his administration from spreading these lies.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Hey man you got it all backward,

Saddam terrorized Isreal,

Islam terrorizes christianity,

Europe (France and Germany), terrorizes North America,

Democrats terrorize the middle class,

Bush terrorizes those that believe the US has the right to be a visible and unappologetic superpower.

My explanation is much better than the rest of the XXXX here.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
No matter what, Bush's words of terror were more real than Saddam Hussein's weapons of terror. Are words terrorist actions? Speaking is an action.

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
True, but Saddam had a lot to say also. The only difference between the two is that Bush had guaranteed ability to back up his words and Saddam we had strong reason to believe the same (in the end we found that he was playing games, many of which are still not resolved).



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
What? Europe does what to us and Islam does what to Christianity? What What What?

Hey if somebody would explain this to me: why didn't Saddam's neighbors, of whom we were concerned of, jump on the bandwagon to eliminate him?



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Requiem,

good question. Does it have to do with Islamic solidarity?



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Islamic solidarity? Are you talking about the standards, or values...generally of their religion?

I don't think Saddam would risk terrorizing the US in any way, shape or form. He does seem rather idealistic, but why would Hussein use WMD on us.

When Bush let out his steam, it reminded me of people who keep you misinformed by fright, or just reminding you of the worst possible senarios.

And plus, it isn't like America, in past wars, have not terrorized the civilian population. No country is perfect, so I'd rather we pretend not to be.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I don't think it was an Islamic solidarity. Maybe an Arabic solidarity, but no Islamic. Saddam was extremely secular.

The point of this is that the administration knew that what they were saying was either: a> extremely over-exagerrated or b> outright lying. The Saddam-Bin Laden connection they tried to push was found to be false. Saddam seeking "yellow cake uranium" was false. The weapons have not been found and the intel on them were about 12 years old I believe.

I do not completely disagree with the war, per se, but I have a problem with the tactics that the administration used to get the people behind it. I've seen that before. It was a movie, but kinda hard to understand all of the German.

We should have went to war based on the merits of it, without the flimsy WMD argument. Granted, no it wasn't the only reason for war. But dammit, you know most people of this country wouldn't have gone along with this god damned war had it not been for this GWB administration's wonderful illustration of the threat that these weapons, that every Iraqi man had in his living room mind you, possesed. GWB's SotU address, Rumsfeld's "We know where the weapons are...", Colin Powell lying to the UN and the many other television appearances regarding these weapons baked with good wholesome TERROR is why the people of this country supported the war. The fact that we've had major occupation of this land since the start of the summer and still haven't found anything is a good sign that this is all a lie.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Requiem: "Hey if somebody would explain this to me: why didn't Saddam's neighbors, of whom we were concerned of, jump on the bandwagon to eliminate him?"

Because being his neighbors, they knew the impact that 12 years of sanctions had on Iraq and its military. They saw through the lies and half-truths that the Bush Administration was peddling.

More than half the countries in the world didn't believe the BS either. Just those he could terrorize into signing up.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people".

I could easily say the same about the US, and I do.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join