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.

 

Bush: Yeah, we signed off on Torture. So What?

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Maxmars
 

"..... pre-screened" to uphold the vested interests of the above entities. Otherwise, they would never be given a shot (i.e. Rion Paul) by the corrupted media (which are also extensions of the above entities).


I was trying not to 'go there' with RP. I really saw his platform as a potential starting point to regain our freedom. Then I woke up. The media had already decided.

Well, we're not dead, there's still hope. Assuming I can actually find a 'write-in' ballot, I'm voting for him anyway - even if he doesn't want the job.




posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


So our ever-idiotic Decider in Chief basically admits he has pissed all over international law, and AUTHORIZED WAR CRIMES! And he is completely indifferent to it! There's no doubt whatsoever now, EVERYONE at the top of this administration are ALL GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES!

Please, would somebody bring these animals to justice...Please.




hear, hear



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


jsobecky said:

Title 18 deals with Crimes and Criminal Procedure. For someone to be prosecuted, he would have to had lied under oath.

I don't remember Bush having lied under oath.


No, under 18 USC Section 1001 it is crime to lie to Congress. Being under oath is not required. You can repeat that bit of misinformation all you want. The statute speaks for itself. Once again, here's the link: www.law.cornell.edu... . I suggest you read the statute before saying yet again that it isn't a crime to lie to Congress if the liar is not under oath.

[edit on 4/13/2008 by dubiousone]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 



Originally posted by dubiousone
No, under 18 USC Section 1001 it is crime to lie to Congress. Being under oath is not required. You can repeat that bit of misinformation all you want. The statute speaks for itself. Once again, here's the link: www.law.cornell.edu... . I suggest you read the statute before saying yet again that it isn't a crime to lie to Congress if the liar is not under oath.

[edit on 4/13/2008 by dubiousone]

It's not misinformation. It's a fact. Why are oaths taken before testimony, if not to force the person to tell the truth under penalty of law?

Besides, the allegations of "lying" are in many cases opinion only.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
This guy and his administration never ceases to amaze me.

I'd never wish the use of torture on anyone, friend or foe, but next time i hear of one of our guys having been tortured, beheaded or whatever, i really don't think i will be able to feel as disgusted as i used to.

If we do it and think it's fine, who are we to moan when they do it to our guys?

Bush is a prize tool, i swear to God that guy is a monkey that has been put in a suit and strategicaly shaved!

CX.


and you are a complete idiot if you think torture hasnt prevented attacks. do some freaken research get your facts straightened out and just stop going along wiht this i hate bush bs all of you are into. seriously the guy is a good leader and a good president.
you guys are ignorant.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by logictruth
 


Perhaps you could show us all your research, links and proof and show the rest of us just where we've been going wrong.

Assuming you have some of course.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Originally posted by jsobecky
Besides, the allegations of "lying" are in many cases opinion only.


More of your opinions passed off as "facts." :shk:

Submitted for your perusal; the 935 documented lies made post 9/11 to the American public and the world at large.

Observe and take note of the evidence presented, and, in your own words:


please do try to keep up.

posted by jsobecky here



President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
The Center for Public Integrity | The War Card | Orchestrated Deception On The Path To War

It's easy to dispute the truth with nothing but opinion backed up with zero evidence, isn't it?

And it's also easy when pressed for evidence to support an assertion to lay claim to faulty memory and make comments like:



That's what I remember of the case. I can't remember the guy's name. No facts fudged here.

And I'm not interested in your "understanding" of the case.

posted by jsobecky here


Unlike you, I would be interested in any valid evidence that you can present here to myself and the followers of this thread to support your opinions.

And just so we're clear on this; I have never, not once, ever taken a position such as that displayed above by yourself embracing ignorance.

The ball is once again in your court, sir.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 



Dang! You're good! I've been looking for that list all over the place.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by budski
 


and again I ask you:

How many terror plots have already been foiled since the topic of waterboarding first surfaced?

Please tell me where we were attacked?

This is proof enough!




Not being attacked doesn't mean it was thanks to torture.That is simply your opinion it is not a fact. We haven't been attacked again because who ever is planning on doing it just isn't ready to do it yet.They aren't going to say anything about it.You don't go around telling people you're going to beat up the neighborhood bully. especially when that bully is bigger,meaner,and stronger than you.If he knows it's coming he's going to be ready for it and hand you your ass.No, you have to catch him not looking. Torturing will get nowhere as far as information goes. All anyone has to do to stop the torture is say something,anything they think the person doing the torturing will believe. Completely false info can even be given to distract from the real plan.Think about it. They're probably going to kill you anyway why give them true info.


Is it wrong to torture? Or is it okay? I have to say yes and no to both of these questions. I feel it's wrong to put somebody through something like waterboarding or worse.But at the same time if it's believed that something is known by this person. And by that I mean really believe they know something not just think they might and that info could save the lives of unknown numbers then yes I feel that info should be gotten in anyway necessary.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Thanks, my friend; I've posted that link at least four times lately...it would seem it bears repeating!


Be sure and bookmark that site - The Center For Public Integrity - it's a wealth of non-partisan, unbiased information concerning far reaching issues that have a profound impact upon us all.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 



Originally posted by goosdawg


Originally posted by jsobecky
Besides, the allegations of "lying" are in many cases opinion only.



Submitted for your perusal; the 935 documented lies made post 9/11 to the American public and the world at large.


This "source you cite is nothing but BS. Why? Because Bush was not the first president to claim that Iraq had WMD's:


Lies about Iraqi Nukes


On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton informed the nation that he had ordered military action against Iraq. No less than three times Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear arms or nuclear program.


Example 1: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Example 2: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."

Example 3: "And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."


www.nationalreview.com...

Clinton and all of his administration, the world intelligence network, and other world leaders all asserted prior to 9/11 that Hussein had WMD's. So the "lie", if you want to call it that, pre-dates Bush. Your "source" is bogus.




Originally posted by goosdawg

It's easy to dispute the truth with nothing but opinion backed up with zero evidence, isn't it?


So where's the "truth" in your source?

It doesn't exist. The same way the sensationalistic title of this thread is a LIE.

You are in here defending a LIE with bogus sources. That's called disinformation, and is another example of your ignorance of the truth.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Originally posted by jsobecky
This "source you cite is nothing but BS. Why? Because Bush was not the first president to claim that Iraq had WMD's:


"Wah, it's not fair! Billy lied so why can't Georgie lie too!?"

Puerile and weak...:shk:

What do the lies of others have to do with the 935 documented lies perpetrated by the top dogs of the Bush administration?



The fact that Clinton was a lip-biting, womanizing liar has absolutely nothing to do with the authenticated, orchestrated deception that the Bush/Cheney regime employed to drag the U.S.A. and a few allies into an appallingly stupid, pointless and profoundly expensive war.

Appallingly stupid, pointless and profoundly expensive for most Americans and the rest of the world that is; if you count yourself among the ultra-wealthy elitists, globalists, war-profiteers, and oil & banking cartels, your results may vary.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Clinton and all of his administration, the world intelligence network, and other world leaders all asserted prior to 9/11 that Hussein had WMD's. So the "lie", if you want to call it that, pre-dates Bush. Your "source" is bogus.


Not "lie" but lies!

More than one!

Many!

Multiples of many!

Nine-hundred-thirty-five lies, to be exact!


But I guess that would excuse Bush from culpability for ignoring the warning signs of the impending attacks on the WTC because he was busy taking vacations and playing cowboy for the first twenty months of his pResidency, eh?

No, actually it wouldn't.


But Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway, so, besides attempting to obfuscate the point of this discussion, (for what reason, one might ask?) one really doesn't see the point of your off-topic meandering.

Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Documented.

Proven.

No doubt.

And my source is impeccable.

Observe; the mission statement for The Center for Public Integrity:


The Mission of the Center for Public Integrity

The mission of the Center for Public Integrity is to produce original investigative journalism about significant public issues to make institutional power more transparent and accountable. To pursue its mission, the Center:

* Generates high-quality, accessible investigative reports, databases and contextual analysis on issues of public importance.
* Disseminates work to journalists, policymakers, scholars and citizens using a combination of digital, electronic and print media.
* Educates, engages and empowers citizens with tools and skills they need to hold governments and other institutions accountable.
* Organizes and supports investigative journalists around the world who apply the Center's goals and standards to cross-border projects.
* Remains independent by building a strong and sustainable financial base of support, including a community of committed individuals and foundations.

The Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, non-advocacy, independent journalism organization based in Washington, D.C.

Emphasis mine
The Mission of the Center for Public Integrity

Yeah, bogus, right...:shk:

Check out their current lead article on Hillary Clinton and the Wal*Mart videos and then try to assert that they're anything but unbiased in their examination of news-worthy items of interest.

The Center for Public Integrity

The source you cited, The National Review was founded by William F. Buckley, Jr. an arch conservative, and espouses strictly conservative views and analysis on the world's current events.

The Center for Public Integrity - impartial vs The National Review - blatantly biased; there's no comparison.


Your article may be quite true, but again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand: the arrogant and aloof attitude displayed by an imperial administration which considers itself above the needs of the common people and world opinion and only caters to the greedy interests of ultra-wealthy elitists, globalists, war-profiteers, and the oil & banking cartels.

98 percent of those professional historians interviewed agree, the Bush pResidency has been a failure, and not only that, "more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history."

Source | US News & World Report | The First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush

And that information is from a decidedly conservative viewpoint!


Even those of a conservative persuasion are abandoning their support of this criminal regime.

Anyone who still supports these liars and thieves are either millionaires, shills or suckers.

Where do you stand?

:shk:

BTW, did I happen to mention | The Center for Public Integrity?












[edit on 16-4-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 



Originally posted by goosdawg


Originally posted by jsobecky
This "source you cite is nothing but BS. Why? Because Bush was not the first president to claim that Iraq had WMD's:


"Wah, it's not fair! Billy lied so why can't Georgie lie too!?"

Puerile and weak...:shk:

What do the lies of others have to do with the 935 documented lies perpetrated by the top dogs of the Bush administration?



It makes them pointless. It makes your whole debate nothing but cherrypicking.


Originally posted by goosdawg

But Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway, so, besides attempting to obfuscate the point of this discussion, (for what reason, one might ask?) one really doesn't see the point of your off-topic meandering.

Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

So why are you mixing the 2 topics? You're dazed and confused.


The supposed "935 lies" dealt with

statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Not 9/11.

So why are you mixing the two?



Originally posted by goosdawg

BTW, did I happen to mention | The Center for Public Integrity?



All that typing you did, for nothing. Don't mix the "935 lies" you tried to pass off as truth with what a bunch of Islamic terrorists did on 9/11.

And why are you defending this thread anyway, seeing as how the title is a LIE?!?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by goosdawg
 



Originally posted by goosdawg


Originally posted by jsobecky
This "source you cite is nothing but BS. Why? Because Bush was not the first president to claim that Iraq had WMD's:


"Wah, it's not fair! Billy lied so why can't Georgie lie too!?"

Puerile and weak...:shk:

What do the lies of others have to do with the 935 documented lies perpetrated by the top dogs of the Bush administration?



It makes them pointless. It makes your whole debate nothing but cherrypicking.


Wrong!


My points concerning the moral bankruptcy of the Bush/Cheney administration are spot on, and entirely, indisputably, relevant.

Your calculated, feigned ignorance of their applicability is, quite frankly, wearing rather thin.

The crass display of lassitude by the Bush/Cheney administration to the approval of torture, is simply the latest in a long line of reprehensible behavior.

Beginning with their sinister and self-serving, orchestrated deception; the deliberate dispersal of 935 proven falsehoods endorsing the invasion of Iraq.

This thread is not about Bill Clinton's lies, Saddam Hussein, who perpetrated 9/11 nor the semantics involved in paraphrasing the pResident's attitude when asked about his approval of torture.

All off topic points, one might add, you introduced.

Take another good look at the title of the thread and the referenced article.

*gasp!*


There are no quotation marks anywhere to be seen!!


Your motivation to derail this thread by introducing irrelevant issues is transparently disingenuous.

I repeat: this thread is about the indolent indifference exhibited when asked of his approving of torture by the "insulated" acting chief executive of the United States of America.

Apparently,


You're dazed and confused.


posted by jsobecky here


Or, more likely, you're assuming that guise in order to attempt to confuse others.

Either way,



please do try to keep up.

posted by jsobecky here


To assist in your search for the truth here's that link, once again: The Center for Public Integrity



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Yadda yadda yadda. You've just about used up all the big words you know, and you haven't really said anything of note. You bore me.

And you're still defending the LIE. :shk: Shame on you.

Buh-bye.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Wait, don't run away now, I'm just getting started!


I haven't even begun to use all the big words I know.

Ah well, I suppose there are those who would rather whole heartedly embrace their ignorance than admit to the truth.

Don't forget, it's: The Center for Public Integrity



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The topic of this thread is "Bush: Yeah we signed off on Torture. So What?"

The topic of this thread is not each other. Please leave the personal commentary out of this. Any further off topic responses will be removed.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join