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.

 

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Yep, I'm pretty sure that he'll turn into a composite of the 3 wise monkeys if he's elected.

Political posturing is what it's all about in our soundbite world, where peoples attention span on average is the length of time of a TV advert.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackbox
Why wait until he's president? Last time I checked, the Democrats hold the majority in congress... why doesn't he spearhead an inquiry there?


On tough issues in congress he just votes 'present'. He can't change anything if all he does is vote 'present' instead of 'yes' or 'no'.

His 'change' mantra is a lie.

If he doens't even have the ability to make himself vote more than 'present' then he certainly isn't going to get up the courage to go after a fellow CFR.

IMHO



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by blackbox
Why wait until he's president? Last time I checked, the Democrats hold the majority in congress... why doesn't he spearhead an inquiry there?


If he doens't even have the ability to make himself vote more than 'present' then he certainly isn't going to get up the courage to go after a fellow CFR.

IMHO



What is a CFR? Sorry I'm a noob.

I understand the "no one-liner" policy though so lalalala.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Regardless of how much you like/dislike Obama or where on the political spectrum you sit what's more curious is why he'd even bring it up? Seems like pandering to the far left when he already has their vote. Isn't there more important things for him to address IF he gets elected?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackbox
What is a CFR?


here is some info ... and here is some more.

One site claims that Michelle Obama is on the board of directors of the CFR in Chicago. hmmmm ....

[edit on 4/15/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackbox
What is a CFR? Sorry I'm a noob.


Council on Foreign Relations

From CFR's article on wikipedia:

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921 and based at 58 East 68th Street (corner Park Avenue) in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Through its membership, meetings, and studies, it has been called the most powerful agent of United States foreign policy outside the State Department. It publishes the bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs. It has an extensive website, featuring links to its think tank, The David Rockefeller Studies Program, other programs and projects, publications, history, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.


There's a bunch of threads here on ATS discussing CFR and CFR members, do a search to check them out.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Good investigate the a-holes. I totally agree. Noone is above the law.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackbox
What is a CFR? Sorry I'm a noob.


Council on Foreign Relations:

Side A says "Just a bunch of influential folks getting together to help spread understanding between nations."

Side B says "Just a bunch of influential folks getting together to help spread their ideology into the nations of the world - so they can assist in indirectly controlling everything -- and all the profit that entails.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
To: Everyone who helped my CFR question

Thanks! Lots of info on those links from the search and I appreciate the summation Mars...

I found out, from reading a little that Obama's top foreign affairs advisor (Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ) is a member of the CFR. Here's the article I found that information in: www.globalresearch.ca...

I probably did that all wrong (reference link)... but I figured I would jump into the fire and learn through mistakes.

This is going way off topic though... Sorry about that.


[edit on 04/03/2008 by blackbox]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
G-d help us if this guy gets elected. I think we recently caught a peak of the REAL Obama when his comments in San Francisco were recorded and released. That is the true Harvard elitist side of Obama that many Americans have no clue about. He hides it well with his crowd-captivating speeches and his carefully calculated public comments.

What kind of country will this be if every incoming President decides to launch an investigation of the previous Administration, provided they were from the "other" party? This guy wants to dig through some files and look for crimes that he isn't even sure exist. And this is especially troubling during a time of war. If this guy truly wanted to unite this nation and its people, then he wouldn't declare his plans for a witch hunt just to appease those on the left.

I'm sure that virtually every administration in the history of this country have committed acts, especially during a time of war, that could later be construed as breaking the law. How can we ever expect great leaders to run for President if they have to worry about the next guy combing through their files in an attempt to have them locked up? How can a president properly conduct a war if he has to worry that every single decision he makes, and every decision made by those around him, could later lead to criminal prosecution? This is similar to Democrats seeking information about private conversations between the President and his advisers. Doing so undermines the ability of the President to receive adequate counsel if the individuals advising him have to worry about their conversations and advice being made public in what amounts to nothing more than partisan politics.

I just hope that those of you who actually want this guy in office take a real hard look at his voting record in the Senate as well as his record as an Illinois State Senator. This man not only lacks the experience needed to be President, but he also lacks the good judgement required of a Commander-in-Chief, which we have lately become more aware of (ie: Rev. Wright, Obama's "bitter" comment, shady real estate deal, etc).

But who am I to question the policies of a man who declares that he has more foreign policy experience than Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain, because he spent a few years living in Africa as a pre-teen???


We're heading in a very dangerous direction with Barrack Mabus... err.. Obama.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Mabus... err.. Obama.


MABUS!!!
Yes! That fits in with this thread somewhat.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


I take your point, but couldn't all of that equally be said of bush?

And let's not even go there as far as bush/bancruptcy/dodgy dealings in business go.

They are all less than perfect and I do think that obama is jumping on a bandwagon a bit here, BUT there's sometimes a need to express outrage if there is a case for it.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I take your point, but couldn't all of that equally be said of bush?


Bush .. Obama ...
Obama .. Bush ...

And the difference is ...?

ON TOPIC - IMHO Obama wouldn't go after Bush or Cheney.
CFR buddies and all that.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

On tough issues in congress he just votes 'present'. He can't change anything if all he does is vote 'present' instead of 'yes' or 'no'


A senator or congressman votes "present" when he or she doesn't want to kill a bill enirely because they consider it basically sound, but they don't want to vote "yay" on it either because it has some rider or attachment that involves pork or some other undesirable feature. It's a common practice in Congress to attach unpopular bills to popular ones to try to get them passed. Voting "present" is an accepted political strategy.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
Voting "present" is an accepted political strategy.


Accepted political strategy. Yep.
OLD POLITICS. So much for change, eh?

Say yes when you mean yes, and no when you mean no.
To get things done - to get things changed - ya' gotta' vote.

It just looks wishy washy ... 'present'.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Agreed,

it's like "I'm here but I just can't decide between the tofu salad and the nut cutlet, I think I'll just have a glass of water"

A strange analogy, granted.

But apt, I think.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
I think if he came out and started saying he would go after Bush for war crimes he would have to dicount ever winning any superdeleagates. And Nancy Pelosi ruled impeachment off the table and has blocked anybody from moving forward.


If O(bs)ama came out and said he was going after Bush and Cheney, he wouldn't ever get the chance. Many "independents" that might otherwise have voted for him wouldn't, plus he'd lose the vote of any thinking person that would understand that a Bush-Cheney witch hunt would accomplish nothing except paralyzing the next administration and just about guaranteeing that the Republicans would go after O(bs)ama in a similar manner during the one after that. And from the way O(bs)ama has handled his campaign so far, don't think he wouldn't have given the Republicans plenty to go after by the end of his term.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I heard this same thing come out of Obama's mouth during the first debates, months ago. He's now repeated it. And this is in contrast to what McCain said he would do. So this is a plus for Obama in my book.

As for whether or not he's serious about it, is anyone serious in politics? Can we trust anyone? No. So what do we use to determine the best man (yes, I said best man, as opposed to Hillary) for the office? Rhetoric? Rumor? What Limbaugh says about him?

If you discount what he says, you remove all evidence and it becomes a flip of the coin. I discount Hillary because she's had a long torturous history of continual lying and deception. McCain, to a lesser degree, hasn't been straightforward with us either. He's a conservative now? After wanting to grant citizenship automatically to all illegal aliens? After his attacks on free speech in the name of 'fairness'? I don't think so.

Obama may well be a liar, but I know Hillary is, and I know McCain is. I can only hope Obama isn't, and that I don't get hurt too bad when he defies that trust.

Sheesh, I wish we had a candidate on either side that was good...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Sheesh, I wish we had a candidate on either side that was good...

TheRedneck


A message from the CFR:

Request denied!



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
This guy wants to dig through some files and look for crimes that he isn't even sure exist.


In light of everything that we know, that has been leaked and even admitted by many of Bush's administration and Bush himself, I would say that there's very reasonable suspicions to think that many of this administrations' actions violated domestic and international laws.



If this guy truly wanted to unite this nation and its people, then he wouldn't declare his plans for a witch hunt just to appease those on the left.


I don't care whom it appeases. I want to see criminals prosecuted, no matter if it pleases the left or the right. And you think seeing criminals getting away with it, just because they have big corporate or governmental jobs, unites this nation?

Now, I understand that no one has been convicted and it's only my opinion that Bush and his administration violated domestic and international laws, but saying that an investigation shouldn't be done because it divides the country is ridiculous. In my humble opinion, of course




I'm sure that virtually every administration in the history of this country have committed acts, especially during a time of war, that could later be construed as breaking the law.


This quote really worries me. Not because you think virtually every administration in history of this country broke the law, but because since you believe that everyone did it, there's no point in investigating it.

And construed as breaking the law? Well, and semantics apart, the only way to determine if someone's actions actually broke any laws is by investigating them.



How can we ever expect great leaders to run for President if they have to worry about the next guy combing through their files in an attempt to have them locked up? How can a president properly conduct a war if he has to worry that every single decision he makes, and every decision made by those around him, could later lead to criminal prosecution?


Are you serious? You know.. if we set the standards this low, we'll end up with lousy 'leaders'.

Have you forgotten that when a President takes office he swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? Laws aren't secondary and pesky things that impede the President's actions, even though that's what this administration would like to have you believe. Laws are to be respected and followed.

And using the time of war argument doesn't work. I'm sorry, that's no excuse whatsoever. Again, this administration has done everything in it's power to have you think otherwise, but just because you're in war, that gives you no right to ignore the law.

In fact, many laws were designed specifically to address situations during time of war, one of them being the treatment of prisoners of war.



We're heading in a very dangerous direction with Barrack Mabus... err.. Obama.


Yeah.. Let's stay the course! You know.. since this is a time of war and all..



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join