It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Can someone explain to me what it is exactly that George Bush did that was so wrong? I just dont get the anger towards him. I can not think of one war crime he commited. Can someone please help me on this?
[edit on 17-3-2009 by justsomeboreddude]
Originally posted by haika
Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Can the Canucks delve any lower into the deep reaches of absurdity, and pathetic childish ambitions?
I agree with you on that one but for an entirely different reason.
Why lower yourselves on inviting such an imbecile, resentful, evil man to Canada?
Originally posted by TruthParadox
Everyone is focusing all their anger at Bush and not realizing that the problem still exists, and it doesn't lie on one man.
It just seems incredibly... what's the word... shortsighted.
Originally posted by dariousg
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]
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.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
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.