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.

 

Protests greet Bush's first speech as ex-president

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Great arguments, but deep down, you know he did. Does he look at all sympathetic that he ordered an invasion that resulted in the complete breakdown of Iraqi society, so what Shia death squads are running around, collecting Sunni men and raping then executing them?

No, he looks like a man who sleeps soundly on a big pile of money while his countrymen scratch their arses and then put their fingers to their nose for a sniff.




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
reply to post by sos37
 


Great arguments, but deep down, you know he did. Does he look at all sympathetic that he ordered an invasion that resulted in the complete breakdown of Iraqi society, so what Shia death squads are running around, collecting Sunni men and raping then executing them?

No, he looks like a man who sleeps soundly on a big pile of money while his countrymen scratch their arses and then put their fingers to their nose for a sniff.


Uh no sir, when I say No he didn't I mean "NO HE DIDN'T". That's what I mean and believe deep down.

That's not to say he didn't have a hand in these things, but he is not SOLELY to blame for the things spoken about. Perhaps if you have all the answers you can explain the following:

Keep in mind POTUS is not the most powerful position in the US government, Congress is.

1. How does one man who is not in the most powerful position in America start a war all by himself based on false information? Congress had the same intelligence info that Bush had when they made that decision together. Can you prove that the error on WMDs didn't come from the CIA and other members of the intelligence community? Can you prove that Bush purposefully manipulated the data or had the data manipulated?

The answer is no you can't and no you can't.

2. How does one man who is not in the most powerful position in America destroy the most powerful economy in the world all by himself? Deregulation you say? No, that doesn't hold water. Remember there were two years starting in 2006 where Congress was a majority of Democrats and that's when things really started to unravel publicly. Did he convince China not to buy our bonds? No. Did he create the housing bubble? No. Did he create the playground for predatory lenders? No. Did he put greed into the hearts of Americans who overextended their means of living and signed into contracts with ARM to buy houses that they knew they couldn't normally afford - with NO MONEY DOWN??? No, I think he didn't.

The answer is no, he didn't do it on his own.

3. The 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy - please. I'm not even going to waste time on that crap.

Does that mean Bush didn't make mistakes? No, it doesn't. Of course Bush made mistakes and I think he's partly responsible for all of the things mentioned above.

But remember something - you guys are quick to say that Barack Obama is nothing but a puppet for the real powers that be and his strings are just being pulled. So what makes Obama different from Bush in that regard? I think the very same was true with Bush! I think he was also a puppet for the real overseers of our government, the real people that make the decisions - the faceless men with their hands on all the money and power who sit silently in the background.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Wow, you 2 have some serious, conflicting opinions about Bush. If you keep fighting I may throw an American shoe at both of you.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Laugh it up while you can.

When Obama gets done spending our grandkid's cash you won't be able afford shoes.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Good thing Canada is showing some class.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
So does that mean that any country's leaders that sided with him and sent troops and intelligence assets to participate in this "atrocity" should be labeled as such as well? Better line up Britian, Canada, France, Poland...etc. etc. I can tell you at the Hague during WW2 just following orders wasn't a defense.


No. Why? Because it was based off of the 'false intel' that the U.S. provided as PROOF that Iraq had WMDs that pretty much forced these supporting nations into action. Cheney with Libby causing problems with agents investigating the allegations. Documents that were ignored. No, the leaders of the other nations cannot be held responsible when the U.S. insisted that their intel was good even if the intel from those countries said otherwise. They had to believe the president.

In answer to someboreddude. Well, there's your answer. You say that Iraq was in violation of their, well, not treaty but embargo more likely so that justified the war. Then answer us all this. Why didn't they say that? Why not say, "Hey, they are in violation by doing this and that"? Hmmm?

Did they? Nope. They went on to propogate a fear campaign aimed solely at garnering the public support for an illegal invasion of a soveirn nation. They started spouting off crap like "we don't want to find out in the form of a mushroom cloud" (one of their favorite fear mongering statements) and on and on and on. That WAS THEIR ENTIRE BASIS for going to war. That Iraq had developed WMDs. Well, the only WMDs that Iraq had were ones that Dick (head) Cheney sold to them a few decades back. The ones he used on his own people that he was thus hanged for. Kind of funny that they didn't mention that.

Anyway, no matter how much 'ancient' yellow cake they found it was not a sign of WMDs. They have yet and most likely never will be found (because THEY DON'T EXIST).

So again, please tell us how they violated their 'treaty'?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Funny thing is a thread like this smokes out the last of the defeated Neo-con's at ATS that cling ferociously to their precious Bush. If you only knew how pathetic that is, if you post to this forum your suppose to be at least trying to deny ignorance, isn't that this sites theme.

As for Canada they get it, welcome Obama with respect in Ottawa, curse and protest Bush in Calgary.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


I agree. When is it my turn. I'd like a shot at Paulson too. Here is my American shoe of choice, not lethal unless I used my spiked heels.

files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37


1. How does one man who is not in the most powerful position in America start a war all by himself based on false information? Congress had the same intelligence info that Bush had when they made that decision together. Can you prove that the error on WMDs didn't come from the CIA and other members of the intelligence community? Can you prove that Bush purposefully manipulated the data or had the data manipulated?

The answer is no you can't and no you can't.




The answer to this one is actually quite simple. When he started the war it was a Republican held congress. No, not saying that they all signed off on this war. Just saying what the facts are.

Anyway, he used the same line of psychological warfare that was used on the people of this country. He used the 'bad intel' that was manipulated to make it LOOK like Iraq had WMDs.

Did HE do it himself? Nope. But if a company does something that is wrong and the CEO signs off on it as fact, only for it to turn out that it was baseless lies, who do you think gets in trouble? Well, first off it is the CEO. However, I'm sure he/she will make sure that everyone else along the lines that passed on this 'lie' would get in trouble too.

Well, that didn't happen. Why? Because the intel was good? Nope. Because he didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings? Nope.

He didn't pursue the people that passed on that bad intel because they were HIS MEN and WOMEN. His through and through. That's why nothing ever came of it.

There is so much more but I only have a small amount of time for lunch.

The answer to your second question is that he did not cause this economy to collapse. It just happened on his watch. Unfortunately people will only look at that instead of the underlying factors.

The same thing happened when Clinton left office. The tech bubble burst in April of Bush daddy's first year. Was it his fault? No. It just happened on his watch. I had to try to explain to my friends who were clamoring for Bush daddy's head that the economy is like the Titanic. It just doesn't turn on dime. It takes time. The bubble started to burst when Clinton was in office but it just took a while for it to hit home.

Edit: to remove some of the quote

[edit on 18-3-2009 by dariousg]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

He had grounds to start the war. Iraq was in violation of its peace treaty.

I dont know if it can be proven that he sanctioned torture. I guess it depends on the definition of torture


He didnt ruin the economy. The economy was wrecked by derivatives, the housing market, and a country full of people that want the government to wipe their buts for them. Plus a bunch of congressman who will offer to do it for just one more vote.

He didnt cause 911. It was caused by Osama Bin Laden and his band of merry men.


Actually the story about Iraq being in violation of UN treaties was untrue. The inspectors were in country and yet Bush kept saying they weren't allowed in. They found no evidence of any renewed programs. And finally Bush ordered them out to start the invasion. I was constantly in awe of the bold faced lies he told in the run up to war, and even more stunned that the media never called him on it.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Good thing Canada is showing some class.


Like Bush really deserves to be shown class.

Hes lucky the cops were there or we would have shown him alot more.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


I mean no disrespect, however you say “It just happened on his watch” You quoted him on his last address to the nation, in which he was whining like a baby. That will go down in History as being the most pathetic speech in history. I was ashamed to be watching him. Do you see other world leaders showing such a lack of ethics? The Clinton administration handed over a surplus of money. Bush has yet to account for one penny of costs in Iraq. I support our troops but there are still legal consequences Bush may be facing, however Obama apparently wants to look forward. The puppeteers are pulling strings in all directions.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by wonderworld]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
]

Wow, more than 100 protesters? I would bet there would be way more than that protesting when the Leafs are in town to play the Flames


There were actually far more than 100 protesters. A different, more honest, media outlet said there were 400. Who knows for sure? But as always the media underestimates the number of people in an effort to downplay the incident and try to make it appear trivial. It wasn't trivial.

One poster said that if Bush were to visit Toronto, the outcry would be even louder. I wish he would get the opportunity to be proven correct, and I believe he is correct.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I'd prefer it to be a genuine, Iraqi-made shoe, thanks!


Originally posted by sos37Uh no sir, when I say No he didn't I mean "NO HE DIDN'T". That's what I mean and believe deep down.


Then I suspect I'm wasting my time with this post.

...

But apparently I have some time to waste.


Originally posted by sos37That's not to say he didn't have a hand in these things, but he is not SOLELY to blame for the things spoken about. Perhaps if you have all the answers you can explain the following:


Well, I realise he isn't Ramesses II, but one would conjecture that being informally labeled "the leader of the free world" among other such titles, he might have some kind of power to interject and try to at least minimise the suffering his warmongering and profiteering have caused.


Originally posted by sos37Keep in mind POTUS is not the most powerful position in the US government, Congress is.


As I understand it, Congress is a collection of people and therefore not a position a single person can actually hold. The senators who make up this Congress individually do not hold the same power as the president, however they may make collective decisions regarding presidential initiatives. I can honestly say, like Ancient Rome, I have never been too au fait with it all, so if I am wrong please correct me.


Originally posted by sos371. How does one man who is not in the most powerful position in America start a war all by himself based on false informatio.... manipulated?

The answer is no you can't and no you can't.


I can't prove gravity exists in ways other than the obvious, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Either way, he is the frontman for this organisation, therefore a willing participant, and as president you would imagine he might have some kind of veto power for invasion of nations who pose no military threat and, by self-admission (I've seen the clip), have nothing to do with the War on Terror. Capitalised, because it's going on from Bin Laden's Fortress of Doom, located in the side of a volcano.


Originally posted by sos372. How does one man who is not in the most powerful position in America destroy the most powerful economy in the world all by himself? Dereg... they couldn't normally afford - with NO MONEY DOWN??? No, I think he didn't.

The answer is no, he didn't do it on his own.


I don't think Bush could tie his shoes on his own, so don't worry, I didn't think he masterminded a global economic downfall. Although I can't see where I posted that I did, but I can see why you think I might think this.

However, Bush holds the keys to all the doors, and has allowed them to open to the sort of puppeteers who are able to manipulate things so that the FED's 1930's depression can happen on a world-wide scale.

Say what you like about this whole thing, but it was brought about by shady dealings and men simply talking to each other, there has been no resource deficit that I heard of, and Bush is a part of the group that deals with it all. Grab your tinfoil hats now, folks.


Originally posted by sos373. The 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy - please. I'm not even going to waste time on that crap.


Well done for calling it 'crap', that definitely means those three buildings collapsed from two planes at free-fall speeds. If you don't even want to talk about it, then it really does look like you are clinging to a failed position. I'm just saying.

Didn't the whole thing just seem a little too...Hollywood to you? I mean, it was so cut-and-dried. Most buildings are a mess when they collapse, but the whole 9/11 thing was just very clean-cut, to the point, with no buggering about or anything like that. And all the explosions the New Yorkers were hearing just prior? Tower 7? Come on, life is just never that simple....whats the deal?


Originally posted by sos37Does that mean Bush didn't make mistakes? No, it doesn't. Of course Bush made mistakes and I think he's partly responsible for all of the things mentioned above.


Well, part responsibility isn't so bad. I mean, it wasn't all me, right? So I don't need to take the blame all myself, eh?

No. It's a total moral failure if you allow yourself to be coerced into anything. You are exactly as bad as the person trying to persuade you. Thus you are completely responsible if the decision is only partly yours. We are talking about the lives of so many people here, remember.

And I think Bush makes mistakes writing down his own name ("How many 't's in 'Bush', again?").


Originally posted by sos37But remember something - you guys are quick to say that Barack Obama is nothing but a puppet for the real powers that be and his strings are just being pulled. So what makes Obama different from Bush in that regard?


Absolutely nothing, I don't like him one bit - anyone who smiles that widely knows something you don't, and it amuses them greatly. If anything, I feel sorry for Bush - anyone who puts an idiot forward to be their frontman is a git. I suspect Bush is probably quite a nice chap who probably just wants to chill out and play some golf, have a few brews and watch the game. I can relate, I really can, and I can see why so many others did too, but just cause i'd have liked to hang out with him doesn't mean I want him running a country.


Originally posted by sos37I think the very same was true with Bush! I think he was also a puppet for the real overseers of our government, the real people that make the decisions - the faceless men with their hands on all the money and power who sit silently in the background.


Yes indeed, but this is what capitalism will inevitably breed. The same thing happened to the Roman Empire - it was freaking massive, owned everything, had all the money but the plebs were still starving. Go figure.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Albertarocks
 


Are there any external media links. I would like to see Bush dodging Canadian shoes. Any video clips?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Its nice to see the 4:20crowd active,lol. But lets face the facts, Rich men make the rules,poor men live by them. George Bush is untouchable and the canadian government could never arrest one of there own. We are animals to them, soon they will start pandemics and world war. I have never voted and I have never bought anything on credit, both my grandfathers were in WW2, my father never seen war but I dont see the same for me or my family, the world is alot different and changing daily, be prepared for the worst, personally rallying on the streets doesnt do # and never will. They didnt arrest Bush because the Canadian Government is crooked, isnt itplain to see if it was you or me we would be in jail. We need a real leader to get us threw the comming years otherwise we may as well just walk into the camps now.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I just watched the protest on youtube at this link.

www.youtube.com...

They have plenty of shoes!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by Albertarocks
 


Are there any external media links. I would like to see Bush dodging Canadian shoes. Any video clips?


Yes there are some video clips posted at the top of the thread. There are also some clips on google including this one by Keith Olberman.
www.youtube.com...

There are no videos that I have found showing the actual shoe throwing incidents, but there is a still photograph of a shoe "mid flight", just as it's about to smack squarely on Bush's forehead (a big picture of Bush, not Bush himself). Nice accurate throw though!!


I'll try to place a link to that photo here. If it doesn't work, the photo is in my photo album on this site:

media.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Most excellent video link Wonderworld. Thanks for putting it up... I hadn't even seen that one yet


Folks, Wonderworld has supplied us with a video showing the shoe cannon in action.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join