Obama Not Hot on Bush Era Truth Panel, page 1/
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 12:05 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by jerico65



Got that right. Obama doesn't want to be sitting in front of that same panel 4 or 8 years from now, trying to explain things that happened while he had the reins of command.


I wouldn't blame in for dismissing it on those grounds. Of course that would be suggestive that he might not actually get it right moving forward!


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 12:26 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic



This is a poor decision on Obama's part. This is a plethora of evidence to indicate a full investigation is warranted.


The underlying reality is that the only way the people will ever determine if Barrack Obama is not 4 more years of George W. Bush is to accurately define the Bush Presidency both good and bad to use as that yardstick.



"Because the President does it, it is not illegal" is a bankrupt legal philosophy, and is beneath the dignity of the United States. It is reminiscent of your basic third-world dictatorship.


The amazing thing is in this statement is that the people don't much care when the economy is good enough for it to be a first-world dictatorship. When the economy gets bad enough for it to be a third-world dictatorship people do suddenly care!


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 12:31 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by BlueRaja



You may want to look at Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.... and how Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were forced to make bad loans to high risk customers, and the role this played. You can't throw this mess in Bush's lap. Even Clinton was concerned about it.


Honestly I don't believe their are two independent parties and Bush and McCain back in the early 1990's were very concerned about the Fannie and Freddie and the Sub Prime Markets that were basically extensions of Clinton economic policy adopted by the Bush team.

Clearly some notable Republicans had concerns yet despite a Republican Congress and White House were unable to get the job done.

Who really runs the country? The Banksters? The Politicians? Or the Citizens?

Ultimately the only way you are going to expose the Banksters control is by peeling away the protective layers of politicians that hide their machinations.

Whether high enough ranking politicians would risk the Banksters wrath to divulge fully is something that remains to be seen, but I can't imagine a politician coming clean without threat of loosing something significant and tangible if he doesn't come clean.

My question really is, is Obama protecting Bush, himself or the Banksters or all three?


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 12:52 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic



"people" might not much care. I, however, do. My stance on this has not varied based on the whims of the economy or who the current criminal happens to be.


It's why I took the time to post the article for people that do care. Clearly not a whole lot of people do including the media and including the new President who in many ways came to office pointing fingers but hardly has a disparaging thing to say once there.



If there is evidence to indicate the commision of criminal acts, that evidence should be pursued. The nature of an individual crime may argue against the cost of actual prosecution, a fact with which I do not agree, but of which I understand the reality.


I agree it should be and the only way you are ever going to rein big government in and make it honest is be inspecting what you expect and making it replete with rewards and punishments.

Why we ignore the first rule of business, to inspect what you expect when it comes to the business of government seems a bit suspect in my humble oppinion.



War Crimes, as is the case here, are worth pursuing. Always.


I suspect some of these crimes border on treason and sedition too.


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 12:53 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by ~Lucidity



If he's not hot on it, then he is complicit. As are we all. End of story.


I am trying not to be complicit. It's why I post articles like this and write my Senators and Congress People.

It's not much but if people passed it forward...


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 03:34 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mental modulator



His policy was dreadful - if BUSH or DICK were regular men they would be in the slammer.


I tend to agree though it would likely be the first if not one of the first times UNICORE stock holders actually personally added to the bottom line!

Where does it leave regular men though, when their are no exceptional men to champion our interests?

Perplexing and disturbing events. Thanks for the post.


reply posted on 11-2-2009 @ 04:13 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



If they need to make a law, they may need him, but do they need Obama to form a commission and start an investigation?


I don't think they need him to start an investigation but the White House could certainly hamstring an investigation where documents from the White House or under the current President's control need to be looked at or on matters were National Security or Executive Privelage might come in to play.

I am just basing this on assumption though, but it seems to me like a lot of what they might need to do and need to look at has just as much to do with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the former one.

Thanks for the post.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 2 days ago with 69 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 13 days ago with 26 member flags
President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 5 days ago with 24 member flags