Have Bush/Cheney ever done anything that is actually illegal? Nope!, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 05:44 PM by OnTheFelt

reply to post by adamc3

Yeah sorry about that, I was heated and didn't proofread as well as I should have. However, I disagree with you about him quitting, I mean technically yes, but he was forced out!

A New York Times report[1] of August 19, 2001 suggested that O'Neill had been the subject of an "internal investigation" at the FBI. The report suggested that O'Neill was responsible for losing a briefcase with "highly classified information" in it, containing among other things "a description of every counterespionage and counterterrorism program in New York". The briefcase was recovered shortly after its disappearance. The FBI investigation was reported to have concluded that the suitcase had been snatched by local thieves involved in a series of hotel robberies, and that none of the documents had been removed or even touched.[2]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:02 PM by adamc3

Originally posted by dgtempe
reply to post by adamc3

Brilliant! And what do we know about Congress today??? We have learned, at least i have, that its all the same ball game, just different players. They all have the same agenda.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE THREAT THEY RECEIVED THAT UNLESS THEY WENT ALONG WITH BUSH AND HIS POLICIES THERE WOULD BE MARTIAL LAW???? Just a little threat posed here and there, at least twice or so....

More acting, you know, if anything, you should be questioning BOTH Obama and Bush. Not just Bush. Cut from the same mold.

You're defending one party as if we really REALLY had a two party system.
Ha!

Concentrate on how you can contribute to get us ALL out of this mess of a country and world we live in. Forget about defending a has been lame duck ex president. A mess directly pointing to >>>>> GEORGE, and now Obama carries the torch.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I think you are, to quote Bush 43, misunderestimating my intent. Personally I think Cheney and to a lesser extent Bush are guilty of a number of things: illegal wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus ect. And I think they should stand trial for their crimes, no one is above the law.

I am just trying to correct others statements that claim the invasion of Iraq was illegal or unconstitutional. I was in the Army when 9/11 happened and supported the war in Afghanistan but never the war in Iraq, I never felt Saddam was a serious threat to America or the American way of life. But the powers that a President has are powers that we invest to him and his ability to use them. We cant say the use of them are unconstitutional simply because we disagree with them.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:05 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

No problem for getting a little hot under the collar. It happens to all us every now and again. Thanks for at least making a case, that is more than most people have done on this thread.

I do not really see how this thread is viscious though, I am just asking for proof that they actually committed a crime in office. Wouldnt that be important to determine before we start accusing them of everything under the sun?

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:07 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by adamc3

Great point. I love how you handle stuff fairly and back it up with fact. This thread could use more of this and your participation is greatly appreciated.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:14 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by Tiloke

The facts tend to disagree with your proposal. It appears to be a technical issue, mismanagement of backup tapes, and confusion regarding what can or cannot be sent on White House email servers regarding the Hatch Act.

Chronology

Wikipedia

Time

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:26 PM by smurfy

Listen to GW in 2003,
www.youtube.com...
Now listen to GW in 2004,
www.youtube.com...
Well okay he got a laugh at someones expense.
As for legalities,what was GW and Gordon Brown,(GB)

doing in my part of the world this time last year,
after saying goodbye to each other the day before in London,
www.worldreports.org...

[edit on 18-6-2009 by smurfy]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:26 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

To the douchebag OP here you go:

1. On August 6, 2001 Bush was given a national security memo that warned of a possible attack by al-Qaeda during the next few weeks using hijacked aircraft by al-Qaeda agents already inside the United States. Bush responded by taking a long vacation at his ranch in Crawford.

IGNORNANCE IS NOT BLISS! FAILURE TO REACT IS CRIMINAL

You are correct and here is the document.

Smoking Gun

However lets be realistic. This whole report is speculation based on Intelligence. Granted it needed to be looked at, but it was looked at. There is not much a person can do with this info other than have the FBI, etc keep their eyes open and look for the possiblity. It doesnt say attack is imminent or going to happen on this day and this way. I doubt any President reading this would have stopped his vacation based on this info, as there is nothing he could do about speculation other than have the agencies be aware and investigate the possibility.

Heck, if he used this for a reason to not go on vacation then he would have never taken one, because there are going to be things like this regularly appear on briefing docs.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:38 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

2. Bush stopped Clinton's Saudi money tracking system.

HMMM....HOW CONVENIENT SINCE 17 OF THE 19 HIJACKERS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA

3. Bush told FBI to stop investigating Saudi money connection.

SEE ABOVE

Could not find info on either of these even happening. Maybe you could give me some more info. The only reference I found was from the same one you got all your points from. This one: Apparently your source

But this source never gives any proof or evidence that this even occured. I am not saying it did not happen though.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:44 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

4. Airlines stocks were being heavily traded during the weeks leading up to 9/11 indicating possible insider trading transactions.

DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH, BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH IT IS THERE TO FIND

The airlines were loosing money and declining in value, people naturally invest in put options for these types of stocks. They were not even the highest days of buying put options for the airlines.

A better explanation

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:46 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

5. Former CIA Director John Oneil is fired within weeks of 9/11 becuase he did not agree with the Bush's administration on al queda and terrorism in the Middle East.

BUSH ADMIN HAS THIS GUY FIRED FOR ALLEGEDLEY LOSING A BRIEFCASE IN AN AIRPORT WITH SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS.....YEAH RIGHT....OH AND JOHN ONEIL IS MURDERED ON 9/11 AS HE IS IN HIS 2ND DAY OF HIS NEW SECURITY POSITION IN WTC TOWER II

He resigned his position and whether he was forced out or not doesnt matter, he lost sensitive government documents. That is cause for dismissal by the government or any business.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 06:52 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

6. FBI employee Sibel Edmonds warned about attack using hijacked commercial aircraft.

BOTH CONDELIZZA RICE AND BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAID THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD NO PRIOR INTELLIGENCE TO WARN OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11...THIS IS ON TAPE, YOUTUBE IT!!

7. A German agent told FBI about possible terrorist attack just prior to 9/11.

SEE ABOVE

She claims to have said it before 911, but do you have proof?

Also, even if she did say it in some FBI meeting how do we know for a fact that the info was passed to the upper tiers of the Bush admin?

Need more info on the German.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:03 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

8. Bush objects to 9/11 commission, he objects to the creation of the new department of Homeland Security, he refused to turn over documents, and he refuses to testify before the 9/11 commission. He does finally agree to testify but only after having an agreement that restricts questioning.

FEWEST AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE US. 443 DAYS TILL THIS COMISSION WAS CREATED! IF WERE SO CONCERNED WITH TERRORISM, WOULDNT YOU RACE TO FIND THE TRUTH!

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION WAS CREATED ONLY AFTER A COURT MANDATE? LOOK IT UP MORON!

He did object to the 911 commision on the grounds of concern over releasing Intel methods. He wanted it to be handled Congressional Intelligence commitees, since they already have access to the methods. This does not mean he was against any investigation of it.

Source ABC News

Could find no evidence of Bush being against forming the DHS. In fact, I am pretty sure he was for it.

I could see how he is wary to testify as he has knowledge of Intel methods and other things that he does not want to accidentally release to the public. Plus there is the whole public perception issue.

They did race to find the truth. They identified the perpetrators within a few days. They were terrorists from Al-Queda.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:07 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

9. NSA intercepts suspect chatter day before 9/11 warning of an attack that next day.

SEE ABOVE

These message were not translated until 9/12. Also it was said that even if they were translated beforehand there was not enough info to prevent the attacks.

Washington Post ala Prison Planet

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:12 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

10. Five hours after 9/11 attack Donald Rumsfeld told aides to come up with plans for attacking Iraq.

You are correct. He is from the Pentagon this is what they do. It doesnt mean they will attack, but it is their job to prepare. There are tons of attack plans in the history of the Pentagon that are never acted upon.

Plus I bet he was pretty peeved on 911, after watching his employees die at the hands of terrorists. He was probably ready to invade anybody in the moment.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:16 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

11. Someone in Bush cabinet allowed the evacuation of bin Laden family member from the U.S..

I KNOW, I KNOW...THEY WERE JUST LOOKING OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THE BIN LADENS....WHOM BY THE WAY THEY HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVESTED TOGETHER IN BUSINESS

They did not leave the country until Sept 20th, after US airspace was reopened. They were also interviewed by the FBI before their departure.

Source

Also their is no proof that Bush and the BinLadens "HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVESTED TOGETHER IN BUSINESS." Unless you have some.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:23 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

12. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shut down a plan to weaken the Taliban.

RESEARCH IT!

13. The CIA's National Reconnaissance office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following an equipment failure for the morning of 9/11.

BUT REMEMBER, THE BUSH ADMIN HAD NO IDEA OF THAT KIND OF POTENTIAL ATTACK!

Couldnt find evidence of 12 but if you want to provide link I will investigate.

13 is true. Just a coincidence I believe. Obviously all testing would have been done before the attack not the day of. Who tests something right when the real world live event is going to happen?

But I will give you a point for this one.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:30 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

14. Numerous and repetitive lies from Condoleezza Rice, and Bush about warnings they had received prior to 9/11.

SEE ABOVE

15. Rumsfeld threatened a veto when Congress proposed to shift $600 million from Bush's Star Wars program to counter-terror programs prior to 9/11.

DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? I DIDNT THINK SO EITHER

16. Clifford Clarke gave numerous warnings to Bush officials about al-Qaeta plans to attack inside the U.S..

ONCE AGAIN SEE ABOVE

17. Despite increased threat warning Tenet only briefed Bush twice in August 17 and 31. This is usually a daily briefing.

DUDE WAS ON VACATION 121 DAYS IN 2001

14. Already addressed earlier.
15. Not sure how that is relevant
16. Giving a general warning of attack is not the same thing as saying this guy will hijack this exact flight and then proceed to fly it into the WTC or Pentagon. For it to be valuable it must contain more info, then Al-Queda is planning an attack.
17. Dude was on vacation. I am sure they could have called him if there was anything of value.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:39 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by OnTheFelt

18. Ashcroft's Justice Department curtailed a program to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the U.S.

PRETTY INGENIOUS HUH?

19. Ashcroft stops flying in commercial aircraft and starts flying in private jets due to security alerts in the weeks before 9/11.

THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!

20. In 1996 Clinton and Gore recommended changes in air safety but Republicans in Congress removed many recommendations claiming they were two costly for the airlines, or might infringe on civil liberties.

GOD FORBID WE WOULD LOWER PROFITS!

18. Need references.

19. Not true. Source

20. This is what Republicans are supposed to do, protect companies from too much regulation and protect civil liberties. You guys flip out about the Patriot Act but then object when they dont do anything citing civil liberty infringement. Can you have your cake and eat it too?

Also, this was before Bush. So they were planning 911 for 5 years?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:42 PM by smurfy

reply to post by grapesofraft

I'm a bit confused here,
Are you saying that Donald Rumsfelt's plans were not acted apon or,that they were.GW is on record as saying that the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
What about Guantanamo? were all legal protocols followed for the capture of the detainees there?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by smurfy]

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 07:53 PM by grapesofraft

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by grapesofraft

I'm a bit confused here,
Are you saying that Donald Rumsfelt's plans were not acted apon or,that they were.GW is on record as saying that the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
What about Guantanamo? were all legal protocols followed for the capture of the detainees there?

Obviously they were acted on. But just because they make plans doesnt mean they always act upon them. So nothing is proved by saying that Rumsfeld in what was probably a pure state of anger over the events of 911, starts making plans to invade Iraq.

Proof of GW saying that?

Yes as thre arent really protocols for terrorists who are not acting on behalf of a particular nation. But if you have proof that a law was broken throw it out.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]