Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jerome Corsi, not so fast!!! He is also against Bush

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I would like to put out there some articles that are anti Bush

First about the Bush power grab
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Second here is an article where he defends him self for accusing Bush for pursuing a North American Union
www.worldnetdaily.com...

I have not read all of his writings, however I have been scanning the article titles listed below, and it appears as if he is actually someone other ATS readers may get along with and enjoy discussing conspiracy theory with. He seems to have a balanced anti Democrat and anti Republican amount of articles.

My point is, even if he is inaccurate in his claims of wrong doing by Obama, he is clearly not a right wing tool. I think he is simply a truther in many different topics.

Here is a list of all his writings on WND
www.worldnetdaily.com...




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
He could be anti-hitler for all i care.

The guy publishes garbage. He's no different from Michael Moore in the way he distorts truth.

The only difference between the two is that one works with film, and the other works with books.



Anyone who takes anything he writes with any ounce of credibility - truly needs to look into this man a little further.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Anyone who takes anything he writes with any ounce of credibility - truly needs to look into this man a little further.



That is exactly my point. The media is making a big deal out of this. If Alex Jones wrote the same book, they would not give it a second look.

The only reason the media is looking now is because Corsi managed to fly under the medias conspiracynut radar last time and do some damage. Knowing the guy is just a skunk works style writer now should make the media a little more skeptical, and not allow such a silly topic to become major news, especially considering the source and his history.

The media has labeled him a right wing agent of sorts which is not consistent with his history of writings.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by robwerden]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 




The only reason the media is looking now is because Corsi managed to fly under the medias conspiracynut radar last time and do some damage.


Or because its a best seller. You do know this book has been #1 for a few weeks now? Is the media only supposed to pay attention to anti-Bush books?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Dronetek....sorry about the 'Best-Seller' fantasy.....this piece of drivel achieved that status because of something called 'Bulk Sales'

Please, feel free to look it up. You'll also see that the NYT has a disclaimer, mentioning that little factoid.

Groups, with money, and an agenda that dovetails with Jerome Corsi's did this....buying in bulk, even before publication....in order to further spread the smear....feces. Mods, can I write 'feces'? It's a real word....hope it's OK.....



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What are you saying? Thats the dozens of anti-Bush/Republican books over the last 7 years had no agenda and that they were legitimate best sellers?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What are you saying? Thats the dozens of anti-Bush/Republican books over the last 7 years had no agenda and that they were legitimate best sellers?



Well if you compare "Obama nation" to almost any anti-bush book, here's what you'll get


"Obama Nation" Barack Obama is a muslim

"anti-bush Book" Bush lied about WMD's and invaded Iraq on false pretenses, destroying the economy. He lied about the economy being bad, made things worse, and now seeks to shove it off on the next guy to deal with.



Fiction vs. Fact


Sure, there are dumb Anti-Bush books out
Just like there are credible Anti-Obama books out there.


But "Obama Nation" isnt one of them.
Sorry to burst your bubble, i know how you feel about it



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


I believe that the real message is we need to take the claim of 'best seller' with a grain of salt. It is a marketing tool used to promote book sales. Pre-purchase contracts, bulk sales, and other not-so-honest means are used to be able to bring a book up to 'best seller' status.

An excellent example would upset many people on this board, so I won't bring it up. Suffice to say, "Best seller" means, in my opinion, 'We want everyone to believe they need to buy this book now before we run out.'



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


The only difference is that you beleive claims made from your side of the political spectrum are inherently right. Most of the stuff put out in those books about Bush are baseless and always spun. For instance, that he lied about WMD. Anyone who knows anything about the run up to war in Iraq knows that's bullocks.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


On another thread related to this 'book'....I pointed out, over a course of teasings, that the title had a hidden 'meaning'....I challenged everyone to 'get-it'....but I eventually had to reveal....

This sleazy piece of garbage 'book' reveals the author's bias before you even open the cover.....the title...."The Obama Nation"

Has anyone figured it out yet?

Well, for expediency's sake.....sound it out with me, in English.....Abomination....getting it now??

Jerome Corsi must think he is oh-so-clever!

I'm guessing Ann Coultergeist is furiously taking notes...and complaining that SHE thought of it first...as if she was that smart to begin with!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


that he lied about WMD. Anyone who knows anything about the run up to war in Iraq knows that's bullocks.


What reality altering drugs are you on ?


A compilation of the lies




We see Bush talking about IRAQ WMD's before 9/11 ever happened





So we invade on the premise that Saddam had WMD's






Oopsie



quote from the video "the main reason we went into iraq, at the time, was because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction"




Straight from the horses mouth, President Bush, himself proves you wrong.



That is the difference between the two types of books.

(most) Anti-Bush books use actual quotes, events, and sayings from the President HIMSELF, with things like these videos to prove that he said/did them.


Books like "OBAMA NATION" use hearsay of person A who was Obama's brothers room mates cousin's dog groomer from his poor days in chicago.

BIG difference




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Just because you guys omit tons of history and facts, in order to justify what happened as a lie, doesn't make it true. There is obviously disagreement with your assertion if we are still talking about it today. If Bush had actually lied, your crusade to impeach him would be a piece of cake. The fact he isn't and wont be is because we got in to war based on 10 years of ignored resolutions, failed inspections and this country's fervor to depose Saddam.

No amount of your ilk's revisionist history is going to change that.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


what is being omitted?

They are HIS words. They are HIS words.

What part of that dont you get?

President Bush HIM SELF says

"The main reason we went to Iraq was because they have WMDs"

Oops

They didnt have WMDs


Whats being omitted?




This is classic conservative "run around the bush" type debate. You cant see the tree's for the wool pulled over your eyes. Bush lied. You said he didnt, i give proof, from president bush himself, that proves that you're wrong.


I'm confused.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Oops

They didnt have WMDs


Whats being omitted?


The fact that having wrong intelligence and making the wrong decision is not the same as lying. You come to this conclusion by ignoring the failed inspections, Clinton administration rhetoric and policy and congressional opinions/votes at the time and the American people's built up need to take out Saddam.

The democrats and their followers do this to shift blame in order to benefit themselves politically.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


So the intelligence was wrong?

Wouldnt you call that a serious flaw in the Bush administration?

And if the intelligence was wrong, why justify the war based on false pretenses?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
If the police raided your home because they had intelligence that says you have stockpiles of coc aine

and destroy your house as a consequence

is it okay because


"well, he COULD HAVE HAD coc aine, we had to protect our children!!!!"


Its the same thing.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Dronetek
 


So the intelligence was wrong?

Wouldnt you call that a serious flaw in the Bush administration?

And if the intelligence was wrong, why justify the war based on false pretenses?



Well, it was wrong in the past administration and other nation's intelligence also. Again, you are attempting to imply Bush and congers should have had clairvoyance of some kind. Its also not as if they only used WMD as justification. Remember, the country was already familiar with the constant inspection and resolution failures, as well as the horrors of Saddam's rule.

Trust me, I was sitting in a hanger waiting for the call in the run up to the war.



If the police raided your home because they had intelligence that says you have stockpiles of coc aine

and destroy your house as a consequence

is it okay because


By the same token, what if you're a cop watching a suspected crack house and suspicious activity? What if the crack dealer shoots at you and kicks you out every time you try to search the place? Is there a good chance those police are eventually going to break down your door?

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Even if it is the fault of the clintons - it still doesnt change the fact that we are STILL THERE

fighting a war
based on FALSE PRETENSES

that the BUSH administration has moved the goal post, MANY TIMES, and given us MANY DIFFERENT reasons of WHY we went to war, AFTER the WMDs were proven non-existent



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 



By the same token, what if you're a cop watching a suspected crack house and suspicious activity? What if the crack dealer shoots at you and kicks you out every time you try to search the place? Is there a good chance those police are eventually going to break down your door?


If your'e trying to search the place, illegally, then you have no reason to be there in the first place.

If you invade on the premise of WMD's and fight out there are none, you should immediately come home and suffer the consequences.

Not say "i never said we went there because of WMD's" "we went there to save the polar bears"

The reasons we went to Iraq have changed so many times, from Bush himself.

He's a liar.
The anti-bush books prove it.


Obama nation attempts to prove Obama is a muslim

First off its a lie, second off, if it was true, who cares?

Is there a new qualification that the president HAS TO BE Christian?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Even if it is the fault of the clintons - it still doesnt change the fact that we are STILL THERE

fighting a war
based on FALSE PRETENSES


We are still there precisely because its our duty to rebuild what we broke. You keep saying it was based on FALSE PRETENSES as if everyone knew that before the war started. Its very clear, when you take history in to account, that the prevailing wisdom was that he DID have them.


that the BUSH administration has moved the goal post, MANY TIMES, and given us MANY DIFFERENT reasons of WHY we went to war, AFTER the WMDs were proven non-existent


How could he move the goal posts when the goals and reasons have ALWAYS been the same? The fact large supplies of WMD were never discovered is a mute point at this time! We already invaded and broke everything!


If your'e trying to search the place, illegally, then you have no reason to be there in the first place.


The UNSCOM inspections had a right to be there. The war the happened after the failed inspections was legitimized by the 14 UN resolutions. The point is, if you give everyone the idea you have crack, in what looks like a crack house, than you should expect to be busted.


[edit on 18-8-2008 by Dronetek]






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join