Bush cancels keynote speech after learning of invite for WikiLeaks founder

Bush cancels keynote speech after learning of invite for WikiLeaks founder

www.rawstory.com

WASHINGTON — Former president George W. Bush scrapped plans to address a summit of young leaders and business executives this weekend because Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would also speak to the group, his office said Friday.

"The former president has no desire to share a forum with a man who has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States," his spokesman, David Sherzer, said in a statement.

(visit the link for the full news article)

LOL!!!

Pot...Meet...Kettle.

We could have switched one word in Dumbyas spokesperson's statement, and it would have been equally accurate:

"The WIKILEAKS president has no desire to share a forum with a man who has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States,"

What a joke when the biggest war criminal residing on earth is acting like he is too good to grace the stage with someone who is EXPOSING his crimes. But then again, perhaps THAT is the REAL reason he bowed out---Afraid he might get put on the hot seat? haha



www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I believe he is playing the whole "Good Republican" to a T which is why he won't show. Some Americans still think Bush is from Texas. In truth, I don't think Bush would've cared. If you remember Colbert at the White House, Bush was chilling. Bush is too powerful to be scared of a media darling.

Well Bush is afraid Assange might ask him a question and Chaney won't be there to tell him the answer.

Oh the irony. But damn, that would have been one helluva meeting to be a fly on the wall for—were they ever really to have met and had any kind of a conversation.

Bush sure does seem to have to lay low and avoid a lot of places, eh? Poor thing. The truth is he's probably thrilled to get out of it for whatever excuse

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
the biggest war criminal residing on earth

That's highly debatable. I think the competition is tough and numerous when it comes to that title.

Wikileaks is a CIA front. If it were genuine don't you think some damning evidence about September 11th would have been released by now? Or is there no evidence because the official story is the truth?

The latter question is what makes Wikileaks valuable. They release information that won't accomplish much in the way of accountability while making people assume that if the "conspiracy theories" surrounding events like the JFK assassination and September 11th were true then surely Wikileaks would release some information about it.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


No surprise. Bush lacks the courage to encounter any but the most carefully groomed groups. Can't risk any contrary opinions.

reply to post by PETROLCOIN


I tend to agree if they really had any good meat to throw our way it would have done so by now.

This is part of the reasoning I have to think that wikileaks is nothing more than a government sham.

Raist

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
the biggest war criminal residing on earth

That's highly debatable. I think the competition is tough and numerous when it comes to that title.

Wikileaks is a CIA front. If it were genuine don't you think some damning evidence about September 11th would have been released by now? Or is there no evidence because the official story is the truth?

The latter question is what makes Wikileaks valuable. They release information that won't accomplish much in the way of accountability while making people assume that if the "conspiracy theories" surrounding events like the JFK assassination and September 11th were true then surely Wikileaks would release some information about it.

Exactly my friend EXACTLY!!! Star for that 1

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
Wikileaks is a CIA front. If it were genuine don't you think some damning evidence about September 11th would have been released by now? Or is there no evidence because the official story is the truth?

The latter question is what makes Wikileaks valuable. They release information that won't accomplish much in the way of accountability while making people assume that if the "conspiracy theories" surrounding events like the JFK assassination and September 11th were true then surely Wikileaks would release some information about it.

Leaked by who? You do realize that someone has to leak the information first. Then it needs to be checked to be not authored by the leaker and genuine. You make such leaps of logic without even knowing how the organization works.

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
Wikileaks is a CIA front. If it were genuine don't you think some damning evidence about September 11th would have been released by now? Or is there no evidence because the official story is the truth?

I don't think that's proof, or even just a slight implication that Wikileaks is a CIA front, or any other government run program. That's like saying "If Wikileaks was real, wouldn't some info come out about how the moon landing was fake, reptile alien shape shifters control our government, nibiru is real, free energy is real, etc etc" I just don't buy into it.

You expect them to have information on everything that's happened (assuming 9/11 even was an "inside job") They rely on people leaking information, if nobody leaks any information they can't put it out there. So I don't understand why the lack of leaks on any certain subjects makes Wikileaks any more or less credible.

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
Wikileaks is a CIA front. If it were genuine don't you think some damning evidence about September 11th would have been released by now?

I think you are right. Wikileaks never has told us anything dangerous.

reply to post by SteveR

I think you are right. Wikileaks never has told us anything dangerous.

Wikileaks has proven 100% that all the politicians you elect are nothing but lying scum..

Yet everyone is quite happy to let them carry on..Odd..

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You do realize that someone has to leak the information first.

You do realize someone could have leaked the information and it was buried by Wikileaks. You said yourself it has to be "checked" to be "genuine". This process provides Wikileaks with an opportunity to bury information, does it not? I could submit a factual news report to FOX News but it doesn't mean they will broadcast it.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You make such leaps of logic without even knowing how the organization works.

I know how it works. But judging by your avatar, I wouldn't expect anything less than a biased argument from you.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


considering assange has just been extradited to sweden pending an appeal and then possible (probable) extradition to the u.s i do find this strange that he would be speaking. Wouldnt have been eventfull anyway since assange is said 2 be speaking via sat. How cool would a celebrity death match be between those 2... (insert daydream here)

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Hey DD, one of these days I'll get a scoop on you...maybe You are really on top of things!

But on topic, I think smaller Bush/shrub might be missing some more "appearances" due to the fact that some international war crimes tribunals are smelling their prey....

In that vein of thought, it's odd that a former president on his own turf would miss an invite that would have paid 6 figures most likely. Because of an international misfit who's wanted on steamy sex warrants by some country (Sweden???). Go figure.

Poor lil' Bushy, can't go to Switzerland or a meeting for fear of having to answer for his lies & criminal behaviors.

that is hilarious

I sure Julien's disapointed now, I bet if he knew he was planning to say some intresting things.

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You do realize that someone has to leak the information first.

You do realize someone could have leaked the information and it was buried by Wikileaks. You said yourself it has to be "checked" to be "genuine". This process provides Wikileaks with an opportunity to bury information, does it not? I could submit a factual news report to FOX News but it doesn't mean they will broadcast it.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You make such leaps of logic without even knowing how the organization works.

I know how it works. But judging by your avatar, I wouldn't expect anything less than a biased argument from you.

I did not find the argument biased by any means. Your complaining that Wikileaks has not revealed anything in relation to 9/11 and that is evidence that they are a CIA front. All PsykoOps said was someone would have to give Wikileaks the information first, then it would have to be proven to be factual, before it can ever be released. Now do you really think there is some secret file some place with the plans and names of those involved in the plot of 9/11? Are you suggesting that the Government pulled off the biggest terrorist attack on it's own population ever... but yet forgot to shred some document which would prove how they accomplished it?

Then you go on to suggest Wikileaks has already received such information, but buried it. Now do you have any evidence at all that supports what your suggesting? It certainly seems like you are simply making this up as you go along and tossing out more theory as fact to support your own conclusions.

Before you go on to say I am biased as well.... I also believe Wikileaks to be a CIA operation, but I base my opinion on what they have released and not on what they have not released.

Ah yes, the "Young Presidents Association"...
Internationalists? Check. Chapters around the world. "Contact Us" in the U.S., Delhi India, or Amman Jordan...
Elitist? You bet. What do you expect? Fill out an application, tell us how you fare.
Connected to Israel? What do you think?
www.ypo.org...
Now, someone on ATS mentioned Wikileaks and the CIA, but forgot to mention Mossad. Can't have one without the other.
Fitting that the "enforcer" of a criminal syndicate would speak there. Not sure why he wouldn't want to share the stage with another brick in the wall.