It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House won't release WMD summary

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:20 AM
Sarcasm, no. Touchiness, a little - due to my perception of condescension on your part in saying you felt sorry for me.

Let me make myself clear - I have no political barrow to push, and my avatar should clarify this too. I am not a "Bush-basher", and even though I may feel he's often somewhat of an embarrassment, that's only my personal opinion, which I exclude from any political discussion.[ And I'm preoccupied enough with my embarrassment over my own national leader.]

I believe that transparency of government is far better than the illusion of democracy without it. This leads me to the conclusion that the two of us can never have a satisfactory debate on the topic in hand. We appear to be diametrcally opposed where the issue of transparency of government is concerned. You are happy with suppositions. I am not. I hope you can see the point I am making here.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Bastet
Your feeling sorry for me is NOT the topic under discussion here, smokenmirrors, and a cheap shot like that is demeaning to you.

"remote possibility", "could be" and "who knows" do little to buttress your argument.

A similar document with relevance to the same issue in the UK has been disclosed, & Tony Blair has faced up to it in suitable political fashion. Does not George Bush have the same ability?

Edit - typo

[edit on 15/7/04 by Bastet]

in a word, no. i had a thread here about prime ministers question time a little while ago, and basically my point was that if they instituted such a thing in the US (which i think they should), people like Bush would be weeded out in seconds. he can't think on his feet. his team needs time to program him with all the answers he's supposed to give out.

-koji K.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:55 AM
So Bush has taken the Fourth Amendment on this global issue.

That may seem reasonable to Bush supporters, but it is not sufficient to quiet to approaching storm of doubt on the credibility and motives of the current American Government.

Imagine if the intelligence involved a pre-emptive nuclear strike, would the same level of incompetence be tolerated as lightly?

In light of these events can we ever trust our respected governments again when it comes to declarations of war!

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:56 AM
Shanti, if you meant Bush wishes not to speak about the topic at hand, that would be "pleading the 5th amendment", not the 4th.

And Bastet, I fully understand the point you wish to make. Beware the illusion of transparency of government. Further, the statement I made about feeling sorry for you was an attempt at humor on my part, not an attack in any way, shape, or form.

I live quite a good life here in the U.S., and am not an alarmist. I trust my government, and do not subscribe to the belief so prevalent here at ATS that Bush is evil, that the U.S. is evil, and that we as a country are bloodthirsty. Beliefs differ. I for one think the invasion of Iraq justified, faulty intelligence notwithstanding, as did countless heads of state. History will be the final judge, but as it stands, a dictator is gone, a country has been given hope, and history will stand as judge concerning this war.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:09 PM
No, I meant the Fourth:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here we have a case of 'probable cause'; and now you mention it, the Fifth is applicable too.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:51 PM
Then I stand corrected on the perceived condescension, smokenmirrors.

I never said Bush was evil, nor did I imply any such thing. I am aware of the extensive polarasition of opinion re justification of the war in Iraq, and you may notice that I chose not to include this issue in any of my posts on this thread. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss that matter elsewhere on ATS. Nor did I attribute evil and bloodthirstiness to the American people or any other party.

Transparency of government should not be an illusion at all, and I appreciate the point made by koji_K on this matter. I actually made a post in the thread he mentions, where I pointed out that Question Time is a well established feature in Australian politics, where it is also broadcast nationally. This serves to raise the public's awareness of important issues and it keeps the politicians on their toes. It's the Oz way, to use the vernacular, of "keeping the bastards honest".

Power corrupts those who wield it, and there have to be checks and balances to guard against this. I am sure the Democrats , the "Bush-bashers", et al,would be less polarised in their attitudes towards their President, if they were allowed to raise their awareness of what was going on, and why, in the government of their country. This is the point I am trying to make.

President Bush may indeed have nothing to hide from the public. This is why I feel that the document in question should be released. Caesar [or was it Caesar's wife in Shakespeare?] should be above suspicion, after all.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 08:58 PM
I'd better correct myself before you point out my error, smokenmirrors! I did in fact make mention of support for the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by Bastet
Bush supporters have spoken out in favour of seemingly graver issues than this. Even in support of war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the recall of Reserves & suchlike.

But this was not a thrust of my argument. I was merely lamenting the fact that no Bush supporters had come forward at the time. Then you posted, for which I was quite grateful!

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:36 PM
From day 1, I did not care for G W Bush , my fiance and I fought often( over Bush's politics), he is a Republican and I am a Democrat. My fiance thought Bush was the greatest president we ever had and tried to get me to say the same and think the same about Bush as he did. He would always say to me " well Bush is your president " and my reply had and still is, " I didn't vote for the S O B , so no he isn't , as far as I'm concerned there is no president". Because of our differences on the issue of Bush, it had almost cost us our relationship, so being a woman I gave in a little where Bush was concerned to keep the peace in our home and decided to give Bush a chance.
Bush's chance didn't last long with me, when 9/11 happened, I was shocked just as everyone else was but when Bush started talking about starting a war with Iraq,.............. I knew I was right about Bush and I told my fiance so. I told him what I thought was going to happen before it did and before Bush ordered the attack on Iraq. Everything that I told my fiance, Bush was going to do without thought or care to others, Bush did, and my fiance started to finally see the truth about Bush. Caucus Night here in Iowa, my fiance took the night off from work to attend with me and changed his status as a Republican to a Democrat to help vote Bush out of office. There are a lot of Republicans that are going to vote for Kerry instead of Bush because they have opened their eyes and have seen the light.

Bush will never admit / take responsibility for his part in a war on Iraq that never should have happened. He prefers to lay the blame at someone else's head and hopes that the American Citizens are stupid/blind enough to beleive his hogwash.
I have MORE respect for Tony Blair , because he is MAN enough to take responsibility for his share in this mess and I am more and more discussed with Bush for being the type of person that thinks he can get away with anything, even at the cost of thousands of human lives being murdered, on Bush's say so. Bush thinks he's the Almighty, the "choosen One". I'd rather have Mr. Blair as my president of the United States, then George W Bush, any day.
I don't want Bush just voted out of office, I want him charged with war crimes against the USA and Iraq.
Then I will be satisfied

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:15 PM
Ah, would that it were as you say, nanna_of_6, then I'd be able to deny John Howard as my Prime Minister for the past 8 years! Much as I dislike his policies, I'm forced to admit his astuteness as a politician though, As for Tony Blair, I've always felt him to be the quintessential "man for all seasons", but like Howard, he's astute & an able politician. And he has gone up in my estimation with his handling of the Butler Report on WMD.

I cant bring myself to believe that there's anything sinister in the Bush administration's refusal to release a similar document to the public at large. Until/when/if-ever there's incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I shall feel that there's nothing more remarkable in said document than has been revealed in the relevant UK one.

But secrecy breeds suspicion & doubt in the minds of the public. This is the main thrust of my argument. And it's reinforcing my already held opinion of George Bush - that he's a very stubborn man, and that he either avoids or can't handle criticism To me, this reflects a measure of weakness, not strength, and this type of obduracy is NOT a good look for a President.

It actually brings to mind "The Emperor has no clothes", if you get my drift. And I would also like to add the maxim "You catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a gallon of vinegar" - in reference to the American public, of course..

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:44 AM
Bastet, you have the state of mind that I like.
I can honestly say that I do not judge George Bush because he is a Republican, I judge him as a person that does not like his attitude,that smirk of his I'd like to wipe off his face, especially when I know he's lying , and smirks in away that makes him think he's gotten away with something ( in my opionion), He has smirched the reputation of the United States with his lies, I find him and his Administration repugnant. Mr. G W Bush's IQ is not very high, he held a grade-point average of a 2.0 in college, which is the lowest grade average a college will allow before given a "failing" grade average.

I hate using the term I'm about to use but here it goes-> President Bush WAS NOT elected into office by the people, he was appointed by our Surpreme Court Justices, this is factual. His brother Jeb is Governor of Florida . Florida was the deciding State last Election and Good ol Jeb made sure brother George won, there was some underhandedness involved.

I detest Cheats, Liars, Deceptors and Dictators and this Administration has just been described.
This President has not done one thing for our people but he did help-out his rich buddies by giving them a huge tax break, that came at the expense of the working middle-class and working-poor , among other rotten-underhanded things to the citizens of the United States.

The sooner he and his thugs are gone from the White House the better off we'll all be

[edit on 16-7-2004 by nanna_of_6]

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:13 AM
Thank you for the compliment. nanna_of_6!

And I could list my present objections to Bush, and provide a far more detailed list of [how much time you got for this next character?] John the Weasel's deficiencies, but I don't want to go there in this discussion. I want to stay with the question of the unreleased prewar WMD document rather than see the important issue of transparency in government drowned in a sea of flamefest!

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:14 AM

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
The sooner he and his thugs are gone from the White House the better off we'll all be

Then only will the world be a safer place.
Please remove that madman from the most powerful office in the world.
For all our sakes.

The fraternity greek house system encourages secrecy from the very start of their careers.
Transparency would be very hard to implement in the current American system, or any government system; there will always be a need for 'national security.'

It seems you can hide anything under that pretence.
The worlds population is treated like a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed on sh*t.
If there really is a global situation that threatens our way of life, as they claim, then how come we have no information what-so-ever about it?

Not releasing the intelligence is really not the right thing to do.
He obviously has something to hide.

Maybe his intelligence came from God?
God told him to pre-emptively smite his enemies.
Now that would frighten me.

"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear."

—George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004

I guess that message doesn't extend to the Middle East. . .

[edit on 16-7-2004 by shanti23]

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:38 AM
But haven't fraternity houses been a feature of American colleges for a long long time? [Sorry, I'm not very cluey about your educational "traditions".]].

I realise that issues of national security have really come to the forefront since 9/11 and now the war in Iraq. But the UK did not sweep their relevant report under the table with this excuse. Do not Americans wish, as a nation, for transparency of government?

<< 1   >>

log in