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.

 

Bush's 2004 Scandals for Dummies

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
How many impeachable offenses has Bush and his crew committed... Let us count the ways...

Bush's 2004 Scandals for Dummies
By Bernard Weiner
The Crisis Papers

Tuesday 08 June 2004

There are so many Bush Administration scandals and so little time to figure them all out. So I checked in with the franchised book series that succinctly provides clear answers for confused dummies like me.

Q. Why are all these scandals seeming to come at the same time? Am I imagining this? Is it a liberal media conspiracy?

A. No, you're not imagining it. And there's no conspiracy involved. It's a phenomenon not at all surprising. Here's how it works:

Many of the Bush scandals aren't new at all; they've been brewing for a long time, with the White House trying to push them off until after Election Day. But scandals, like viruses, erupt on their own schedules.

Then, too, when a mass of scandals all seem to be happening at once, the veneer of invulnerability around an administration is removed. Suddenly what looked impregnable now looks vulnerable, and so more people are willing to step up and be counted in opposition, including whistle-blowing insiders with secrets to reveal. And elements in the mass media, looking for juicy stories, participate in the sharks-in-the-water syndrome when they smell blood; these days, they feel they have to dive in because foreign journalists and internet writers are scooping them each day on the depths of the scandals.
www.crisispapers.org...




posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
How many impeachable offenses has Bush and his crew committed... Let us count the ways...

Well I went the the link you provided and didn't count a single one. So when will you supply a verifiable list of impeachable offenses that we can debate?




posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It is so interesting to see the number of impeachment experts present at ATS who are yet to develop counting skills. This exercise is useful for them.

The number of impeachable offences (by definition a much broader catch-all category than the supposed high crimes and misdemeanors definition) can no longer be counted on fingers and toes.

The Bush Impeachment Process thread at ATS is interesting in presenting and linking a coherent and very broad set of arguments since the 'presidential' inauguration of Bush.

Abuse of intelligence services by the Bush administration has been worse than the Nixon years and any single instance is enough.

Lying to Congress has been frequent and any instance is enough.

Lying in the State Of The Union address qualifies in its own right.

Treason is punishable by death.

"Impeachable" and "due for impeachment" are different notions, however, and who progresses the inevitable and when remains to be seen.

Rachel Hunter: "It may not happen over night, but it will happen."



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Tell me about -- oh, let's start with the abuse-of-prisoners scandal in Iraq.

Just look at the smoking-gun memos issued for the Bush Administration by law professor John Yoo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, and the lawyers in Rumsfeld's office -- all designed to permit, indeed facilitate, what is euphemistically called "harsh interrogation methods" (read: abuse, humiliation, physical and psychological torture) and to shield those ordering such tactics and those carrying them out from being tried later for war crimes.

(A bunch of lawyers "redefined" enemy combatants. An apologist is worried about abuse of them. Say, did you see the article on TV yesterday about the 1,500 or so "enemy combatants" that had their ears cut off by Saddam while in his prison? His OWN PEOPLE. Many of them will be treated by AMERICAN DOCTORS AND PLASTIC SURGEONS.)

But what about the Chalabi scandal?

We may never find out what that one's all about, it's so involved in multiple layers of spies and double-agents and triple crosses in the convoluted world of Middle East intrigue. The important point seems to be -- beyond the one of finding out which officials in the Pentagon and/or White House committed treason by providing Chalabi top-secret information

What about the Valerie Plame scandal,

This felonious outing -- a bit of vindictiveness that has Rove M.O. written all over it -- always was a simmering pot that could blow up in their faces. Someone is going down on this one, with indictments coming soon; it's just a question of who the sacrificial lambs are going to be and at what level. Will it stop with the underlings or is it going up the line to Rove and Libby (Cheney's chief of staff) -- or, conceivably, if immunity deals are made, to Cheney and Bush?

(The underlined italics were added by me, to illustrate an example of wishful thinking by the author. CONCEIVABLY it could lead all the way to your third grade teacher, applying seven degrees of separation.)

What about CIA Director Tenet's resignation?

(Nothing to report here.)

What about Cheney's scandals?

(No impeachable offenses here, either.)

What I see are a list of wishful musings, along with the same old BUSH LIED! and CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION rhetoric that we've heard a million times. If you say it long and loud enough, you will convince yourself that these nebulous, vague accusations somehow describe the entire history of this presidency. And don't forget to start with "HE STOLE THE ELECTION."


And finally, lying is an impeachable offense when under oath.

:shk:



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
It's amazing the lengths the willfully blinde will go to to defend the actions of these criminally insane bozos currently in power. It would seem any abuse or atrocity committed under the sun - under Bush's authority - is A-ok with them. How utterly perverse. I just wish all the nazis here in America would go back to hell where they belong.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
They are just scared #less because that is the way that they news plays everything up. They will support Bush all the way because they are morons who believe everything that they see, and aren't smart enough to see it any other way. I particularily liked your comment about the Nazis ECK, it is so true, Bush is screwing over everybody just like Hitler did in Germany before the war. The only difference was that Hitler did it in the middle of the depression when people were willing to try extreme measures to solve their problems. At that time 6 million were seeking arrest, thats half of the workforce, so that they could be fed



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Heard that, Hockey_Crazy. Hitler's little 9-11 event (Reischtag fire) really did wonders for him.

Americans had better pull their heads outta their anusses before we're all slaves. A little review of Hitler's rise to power would do folks a world of wonders.

Bush and his cronies ARE NAZIS. (Don't believe me - research Bush's family history. I DARE YOU!)



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
It is so interesting to see the number of impeachment experts present at ATS who are yet to develop counting skills. This exercise is useful for them.

The number of impeachable offences (by definition a much broader catch-all category than the supposed high crimes and misdemeanors definition) can no longer be counted on fingers and toes.

The Bush Impeachment Process thread at ATS is interesting in presenting and linking a coherent and very broad set of arguments since the 'presidential' inauguration of Bush.

Abuse of intelligence services by the Bush administration has been worse than the Nixon years and any single instance is enough.

Lying to Congress has been frequent and any instance is enough.

Lying in the State Of The Union address qualifies in its own right.

Treason is punishable by death.

"Impeachable" and "due for impeachment" are different notions, however, and who progresses the inevitable and when remains to be seen.

Rachel Hunter: "It may not happen over night, but it will happen."


That was a terrific job of toting out the old DNC "Impeach Bush" slogan while regurgitating abunch of nonsense and pintless drivel. How about you actaully back up your ridiculous assertions with some facts that are grounded with evidence. Example, EXACTLY HOW did Bush committ treason? What lie did he state in his State of the Union address? How was it a lie? I would an EXACT quote and then irrefutable evidence that he was stating that which he new to implicitly false... the actual definition of a "Lie."

What EXACTLY did he tell Congress that was a lie (Keeping in mind that one has to be knowingly giving disinformation or distortions of truth in order to be a lie)? Please furnish the quote.

OUtline the EXACT abuses of the intelligence services and give us examples of what Nixon had done and a description of why GWB's actions are worse.

See, I don't have a problem discussing ways to improve our government. I have no problem with questioning our leaders. However, I do have problems with people making unfounded accusations, without merit, unbacked by concrete and verifiable examples that invariably lead to sound political debate. Sadly maked, your post didn't even come close. Rest assured, I will be awaiting your verifiable examples.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It's amazing the lengths the willfully blinde will go to to defend the actions of these criminally insane bozos currently in power. It would seem any abuse or atrocity committed under the sun - under Bush's authority - is A-ok with them. How utterly perverse. I just wish all the nazis here in America would go back to hell where they belong.


However, what I see here is more poeple willing to defend the truth then to be bullied into buying into your propaganda campaign when it is a straw man. How about introducing some FACTS to support your claims. I'll be anxiously awaiting them...



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo


How about introducing some FACTS to support your claims. I'll be anxiously awaiting them...


Where have you been? On the moon? Go read.

Regarding what Masked Avatar said..

He's right. Bush lied in the State of the Union speech. That is equal to perjury. An impeachable offense. If you don't believe it, ask any expert.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by kozmo


How about introducing some FACTS to support your claims. I'll be anxiously awaiting them...


Where have you been? On the moon? Go read.

Regarding what Masked Avatar said..

He's right. Bush lied in the State of the Union speech. That is equal to perjury. An impeachable offense. If you don't believe it, ask any expert.


OK EastCoastKid... do you understand the definition of a "Lie?" Here, allow me to help you. According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, here is the definition of a "Lie"...

"1.) To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; 2.) To purposefully cause an incorrect impression; to knowingly present a misleading appearance."

Did you notice the inclusion of such qualifiers as "Intention" and "Knowingly"? See, in order to perpetrate a lie, one must be fully aware that the information that they are presenting is in fact innaccurate or incorrect. Your supposition that Bush was fully aware that he was knowingly and with intention deceiving the public is just that, supposition. You have absolutely ZERO proof to substantiate your claim. Yes, perhaps Bush was lying, but we'll never really know. What we DO KNOW is that Bush was citing all of the same intelligence reports that Clinton used in 1998 to pass his Bill calling for a regime change in Iraq. He was also citing intelligence sources from Australia and Britain which EVERYONE agreed to be true. The fact that we later discovered our intelligence to be innaccurate does not at all constitute a "lie", by definition. Sorry.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Yep, you can say anything you want is a lie. But you will have to prove it, please read the above posted definition as you try. What about Congress, they voted to for the war in Iraq, why not impeach all of them as well - seeing as how they all lied an all...

All your doing is barking like mad dogs. People don't buy your arguments. You just hate Bush period.

BTW Bush will get re-elected.


Variable



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   
These liberal extremists will stop at nothing in their vile attempt to smear their political opponents. Sadly, they do not even understand what a "Lie" is. But perhaps I can be of even fuirther assistance on the matter... When these libs begin ranting about Bush's "lies" they are, in fact, the ones lying. Why? Because they are knowingly planting an idea in people's heads that is intentionally misleading.

If Bush lied, then Clinton, Blair, Annon, and countless other leaders also lied as they stated basically the same things. Our intelligence being wrong does NOT constitute a lie, it constitutes ineptitude on the part of the intelligence services... nothing more, nothing less.

Hey Liberals! Why not resort to some intelligent, cogent and logical political debate instead of petty name calling and childish rants?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
they should have a chair ready for mr Bush in Haag, thats where he belongs



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo


OK EastCoastKid... do you understand the definition of a "Lie?" Here, allow me to help you. According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, here is the definition of a "Lie"...


Thanks pal, but I don't need your help. Bush lied knowingly in his state of the union speech. That is perjury. Sorry you don't like that.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
Yep, you can say anything you want is a lie. But you will have to prove it, please read the above posted definition as you try. What about Congress, they voted to for the war in Iraq, why not impeach all of them as well - seeing as how they all lied an all...

All your doing is barking like mad dogs. People don't buy your arguments. You just hate Bush period.

BTW Bush will get re-elected.


Variable


I voted for Bush. I have every right to criticize him and call him on the mat. At least I can admit when I'm wrong. Unlike most of his little brainless, chickenshizit sycophants. But thanks for sharing.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
By the way, the only chance in hell Bush has of getting re-elected is if (A) his people pull off a massive terrist attack and blame it on Al CIAda, or (B) if he steals the election, the way he did the first time.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Perjury? Wow, you are sorely in need of a dictionary. Do you even know what perjury is? It is a "lie" made while under oath. I don't recall Bush ever taking an oath of honesty prior to giving his state of the Union speech.

Secondly, can you give me the exact quote of the lie and which state of the union you are referring to?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
While I'm taking the time to correct you over and over and over again, I'd alos like to point out that Bush did not steal the election... another convenient LIE perpetrated by you rabid Bush-haters.

EVERY letter of the constitution and FEC bylaws were follwed in the last election... EVERY one! I will place the burden of truth upon you to cite EXACTLY which ammendment to the constitution or which FEC bylaw was violated by Bush's "stealing" of the election.

You see EastCoastKid, just because some nutjob states something and the liberals gobble it up hook, line and sinker and begin repeating it over and over and over again, does NOT make it a truth or a fact. I find it shameful that you are so easily manipulated by the talking heads and that you are so eager to drink the liberal kool-aid.

You seem like an intelligent person. Use that brain that God gave you and question EVERYTHING. It will make you both smarter and more wise.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Kozmo,
You need to do your own research. You are in denial. And you are wrong.

Do a google search. Pull up the speech. Read it for yourself. He lied. Straight away.

A State of the Union Speech is the equivalent of giving testimony. If you can't understand that, you are beyond help.

And that is a FACT.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join