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.

 

Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq statements were untrue

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Considering the number of Congressmen and Senators (Hillary Clinton included) who make or have made money from the war in the form of investments in military contractors, I can't let them off the hook so easily. Hillary only dumped her MIC investments in 2007 when she knew they'd be a hindrance to her Presidential bid. Right up till then she was raking in cash from American blood.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Exactly. I do not know who knew and who didn't. None of us do. No doubt, there may have been some that truly were fooled by the intelligence provided and this Rockefeller guy may be one of them. I'm just not sure that I'm buying the official line from the other side that they *all* were. Proving it is next to impossible, unfortunately. The point is, we need to take a long look at everyone in government who allowed this, not just one side.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Considering the number of Congressmen and Senators (Hillary Clinton included) who make or have made money from the war in the form of investments in military contractors, I can't let them off the hook so easily. Hillary only dumped her MIC investments in 2007 when she knew they'd be a hindrance to her Presidential bid. Right up till then she was raking in cash from American blood.


You just answered the question of the day right there. And Vor is correct in saying that all the blame shouldnt be on the Bush admin because when you follow the money you will see a lot of the people who voted for the war have their own interests over there. This is WHY you dont see anything being done. The power of the purse could of been used and impeachment could of been brought like on Bill Clinton for getting a hummer and Im not talking automobile. Our government is corrupt and they have the masses fooled. We who REALLY understand are minimal in numbers and whenever there are protests we are looked at like we are mad. There needs to be true change one that I feel only RP can bring and I hate to keep plugging him but I really do believe this.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Considering the number of Congressmen and Senators (Hillary Clinton included) who make or have made money from the war in the form of investments in military contractors, I can't let them off the hook so easily. Hillary only dumped her MIC investments in 2007 when she knew they'd be a hindrance to her Presidential bid. Right up till then she was raking in cash from American blood.


You just answered the question of the day right there. And Vor is correct in saying that all the blame shouldnt be on the Bush admin because when you follow the money you will see a lot of the people who voted for the war have their own interests over there. This is WHY you dont see anything being done. The power of the purse could of been used and impeachment could of been brought like on Bill Clinton for getting a hummer and Im not talking automobile. Our government is corrupt and they have the masses fooled. We who REALLY understand are minimal in numbers and whenever there are protests we are looked at like we are mad. There needs to be true change one that I feel only RP can bring and I hate to keep plugging him but I really do believe this.


Except Ron Paul wants to dismantle the government and privatize everything. If you think you pay a lot in taxes now, just wait until your ENTIRE paycheck goes to paying for privatized toll roads, privatized police, privatized fire protection, etc. etc. etc. If anything he's a bigger proponent of corporate welfare than anyone, because he wants you to rely on them and them alone for all the services you now take for granted. Ron Paul is a Libertarian and privatization of all government services has long been the Libertarian platform. I know, I was one back in the 90s.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Maxmars.....excellent point! I gave you the star.

Sorry this is a one-liner....but I'll try to dig myself out. Sheesh....phone call, now I lost my train of thought.....

Let me see....Bush lied, they died. End of story.

The Hague? That should be next. It is time to break from tradition of 'pardoning' ex-presidents who break the law. Veeps have tended to be killed in duels....(19th century, folks)....

I am trying to tread carefully here... but as the quote goes, 'Don't Tread on Me'

Of course, it is fantasy. Very wealthy law-breakers rarely get due justice. even not-so-wealthy criminals can flee to South America (think of the Nazis, for example)

Shrub has the wherewithall to hide from any prosecution that, unlikely as it is, might be proferred after he leaves office (finally!!!)

Wait until his Dad dies (from natural causes!!!) and see the fighting over the Will!!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk


Except Ron Paul wants to dismantle the government and privatize everything. If you think you pay a lot in taxes now, just wait until your ENTIRE paycheck goes to paying for privatized toll roads, privatized police, privatized fire protection, etc. etc. etc. If anything he's a bigger proponent of corporate welfare than anyone, because he wants you to rely on them and them alone for all the services you now take for granted. Ron Paul is a Libertarian and privatization of all government services has long been the Libertarian platform. I know, I was one back in the 90s.


He has come out and said that there are certain jobs that government does need to do you just follow the constitution. Local property and sales taxes pay for roads, fire, and police officers. Its not like everything is going to be private and you have to pay for it he just says the constitution tells you what government should and should not be doing. He doesnt want you relying on corporations you are way wrong he wants people to rely on themselves. He doesnt believe in an income tax and he doesnt think the private companies should be handling our money either. I think you may need to do a little more research on RP. Keep in mind he is a constitutionalist more so than a libertarian.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I think The president along with many of his cabinet members could be charged with Sedition:

en.wikipedia.org...

As well as treason:

en.wikipedia.org...

along with many more war crimes.Now the odds of that actually happening is probably 20%.Unless the people of this country start screaming:



I think the odds of them being brought up on war crimes at the UN is a good possibility though.Just my two cent for what it's worth.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
What scares me is the degree of selective memory on this subject.
* Bill Clinton's policy was regime change in Iraq.
* The UN had already authorized the use of "all necessary force," to enforce sanctions, which allowed for the bombings.
* The vote to authorize the use of force for WMD inspections, was to take it back to the UN for a final approval.
Colin Powell said he didn't have enough time to verify the information before his UN presentation and had to rely totally on Tenet's assurances. At least he had the integrity to resign. I never thought they would throw someone like him under the bus. Maybe they did.
France, Germany and Russia were all taking kickbacks from the Oil For Food program, as well as Kofi Annan's own son. It was obvious they would not vote for it.

At the time, the operation in Afghanistan seemed brilliant. There was no reason to doubt the military leadership, considering they had just proven all the skeptics wrong. Everything went well until the statue came down, the looting began and it became obvious there were not nearly enough troops to secure the country.

No one has demonstrated a connection between the vote to authorize force, and the irresponsible, incompetent way it was ultimately carried out. That is all on Bush. We already had 160,000 troops in position. Does anyone believe that turning around and going home would not have been seen as a humiliating defeat of the Great Satan and turned Saddam into an even greater role model and hero? That would have been just as bad, or worse. No action also carries consequences.

I think Hillary got a bum rap and Obama is living in a fantasy world.
Yes, I believe some people knowingly lied and others were duped. I don't believe we ever signed the recognition of the authority of th World Court in The Hague though.
People also need to be held accountable for criminal negligence in failing to plan for sufficient troops, for denying an insurgency had developed until it was too late, and for failing to provide security and essential services.
Bush turned this into a totally partisan war by only allowing Republican loyalists to participate in the post invasion. Knowledge and experience were considered undesirable qualities. It is all spelled out in, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran:
www.rajivc.com...

To me, the war seemed to be so deliberately mismanaged, that it was always intended to be a funnel from the US Treasury, to Republican party donors. That did not become apparent until it was too late.
It doesn't seem likely that anything can be done before the election, but Chairman Conyers has also said that he will pursue Bush administration officials after they leave office, if necessary:
rawstory.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Of course they knew the "evidence" they were citing was false... they were told enough times by both the CIA and by foreign intelligence services... plus it was all compiled in a way to to create an excuse even if none existed.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
www.senate.gov...

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Hypocrisy in action. That's not to excuse the Bush administration if they did lie, but I wonder how many on that Senate Intelligence Committee now issuing this report joined Mr. Rockefeller in being Bush's enabler on the matter?

OK, I'm no fan of Rockefeller, but in his defense, he was not one of the seven senators who saw the reports from the State Department before we went into Iraq. If you wanna find someone else to try for treason, find those guys (and girls, if there were any).



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


As far as I know I have yet to find any actual law, rule or even regulation that says the President cannot lie to go to war.

So in short, no, I do not believe it is punishable by law.

However, it is an impeachable offense if they decide to go that route, which I don't believe they have the cajonas to do.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 




I think the odds of them being brought up on war crimes at the UN is a good possibility though.Just my two cent for what it's worth.


The UN will do no such thing. I know those like you who support a One World Government would just love to have the UN come in and clean up shop but ah .. it won't happen. God save them if they ever tried to as well..



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Forget the fact that Congress was lied to. How about the fact that war wasnt even declared and last time i checked its stated in the constitution that congress must declare war. THE WAR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Frank Black
 



They will fall back on the argument that we were 'at war' with Iraq since Desert Storm and didn't need any further authorization. We're also still 'at war' with North Korea.

The recent bill passed by congress that labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization gives Bush the authority to go to war with them also, when you consider that it's an extension of the 'war on terror'.

It's all a well executed dance and Bush's lawyers and advisers have planned for everything. Congress apparently can't see it or are part of the plan, because they fall for it every step of the way.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The precedent for 'unilateral' action taken in furtherance of UN resolutions was established by G Bush Sr., hence Kuwait.

The power to exercise this kind of military action IS within the prerogative of the President, but it still needs to be justified to the American people via congress, who can then exercise the authority to revoke and reverse the action. That wouldn't have happened as the corporate-junta has too many controlled members in the legislature.

And even if it WERE legal to lie to the American people to that end, do you suppose that is within the spirit of the national framework (the constitution)? "OH he is allowed to 'fool' us, It's OK then?" I think not. Problem is there are too many lawyers thinking that the law is some kind of commercial code where the letter is not to be questioned. This is STILL America and we (the people) STILL are the FINAL judges of the law, not the judiciary, not the legislature and MOST CERTAINLY NOT the 'decider.'

We put these people and controls in place to SERVE us, NOT to RULE us.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


whoa,whoa,whoa....hold on there Rockpuck....not once or in any other thread have I ever! said I was for a one world government.Could you be any more paranoid. You are making assumptions that are not true and everyone knows what happens when you assume things! I don't think it is unreasonable that they could be brought up on war crime at the UN. It happened to the Nazi officers after WWII.Not to mention I love how you seem to speak for the UN stating they will do no such thing...as if being a mason gives you some right.


[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Is this the same "Intelligence" committee that saw the same reports Bush did and gave him the Authorization? The same one that reviewed the UN reports from 18 other nations that came to the same conclusion? The same one where Kerry and Clinton both came out and said we must do it before it's too late?

Next thing you know, you'll blame global warming and the warming of the poles on Mars on Bush.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Monica Lewinsky is a much bigger problem than Iraq
Lying about her could mean impeachment !



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Of course he knew.

HIS VP was one of the higher officials when America obliterated him in the first gulf war.

The President wouldnt send 150,000 MEN and WOMEN into a fully blown chemical/biological war...

Why would we silence critics of the intellegence?
Plant CIA/PENTAGON officials in the media?
CONTROL what the media can show/say/read?
Disclose CIA Agents who's partners HAPPEN to contradict the evidence?
'Lose' Emails
'Destory interrogation footage'


c'mon, Rockpuck?

Are you really that niave?

'' I dont think its illegial for a president to lie a country into war ''

Are you REALLY that simple?

If George Bush knowingly lied, sending 150,000 armed men and women into a foreign country with the aim of REMOVING its government and occupying it, im pretty damn sure that would be considered against the law.

Thats not even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost, due to the direct war, famine, disease...
Or the hundreds of thousands of mutilated bodies..

The economy impact home and abroad..
World SECURITY...


Only a complete fool who stinks of utter ignorance can honestly still to this day declare George Bush acted in the best intentions of the United States.



And its no wonder the world hates the US at the moment,

Too many of you actually believe that!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Nunny
 


i am not sure about this, are you? a lot of changes have been made since 2002-2003. i somehow doubt the same people sit on that committee. i will tell you what i will do, i will look and see who were the members then and who are the members now so we can clarify the record.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join