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.
Please observe, understand and abide by the following:
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
Aired December 4, 2001 - 15:18 ET
THE PRESIDENT: You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
Originally by George W Bush
Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."
Originally posted by Majic
donguillermo: This thread is not about me, you or other threads. We can discuss other topics in other threads.
This thread is about facts proving that Bush lied.
If you possess demonstrable evidence of a Bush lie, I invite you to present it concisely in this thread.
Please address the topic or refrain from posting to it.
Originally posted by Otts
Folks... I may not be a mod or anything, I don't know what the thing between Majic and Don Guillermo is, but I don't feel comfortable about someone being called a "liar" and other things. Whatever differences people might have, we are on this board to exchange knowledge and views, and I personally don't find it particularly interesting to watch mud-slinging.
Economic security is on my mind. I'm sure the numbers are beginning to look better. But there's still people looking for work.
Friday, September 5, 2003.
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: AUGUST 2003
Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 93,000 in August, and
the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 6.1 percent, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported
Ultimately, the debate about Al Qaeda’s current status centers on the important question of whether it is growing or declining in strength. In the wake of the Afghanistan and Iraq military campaigns, when the predicted terrorist attacks on the United States and its interests did not materialize, what is the current level of threat to the United States? Most believe that the denial of safe havens and arrests of senior leaders have seriously crippled the organization when judged by its earlier form. However, it may be evolving into something new. For terrorist groups, periods of evolution can be particularly dangerous. Organizations in transition can be especially vulnerable to disruption and destruction, but they can also be less predictable and prone to lash out in order to cause additional damage, rally flagging supporters, and/or prove their continuing viability. With respect to Al Qaeda, evidence of new sophisticated operations, a possible succession plan in action, central coordination of attacks, and growing international ties, all increasingly converging on a common international agenda hostile to the United States and its allies, may give U.S. officials new reason for concern. In the short term at least, even successes in counterterrorist operations against a more decentralized organization can lead to greater difficulty in collecting reliable intelligence, as the paths of communication are increasingly unfamiliar, the personalities are changing, and the locations of operatives are more diffuse. While the long term trajectory is very difficult to assess, for the time being it seems that Al Qaeda (or its successors) has emerged from a period of inactivity and remains a very serious threat, requiring concentrated attention and vigorous countermeasures on the part of its prospective targets.
On Oct. 17, 2000, in a presidential debate against Democratic candidate Al Gore, then-Gov. George W. Bush of Texas promised a patients' bill of rights like the one in his state, including a right to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed treatment.
"If I'm the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court," Bush said. "That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington."
Today, legislation for a federal patients' bill of rights is moribund in Congress. And the Bush administration's Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to block lawsuits under the very Texas law Bush touted in 2000.
When George Bush says "That's what I've done in Texas", he is lying again, because he is representing that he supported the patients' bill of rights in Texas. In fact, he opposed it. When the Texas Legislature passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, he let it become law without signing it. I don't have a link for this. I am suffering from Google fatigue.
As governor of Texas, George Bush first vetoed the patient protection act in 1995. When the law was passed by an overwhelming majority of the legislature in 1997, Bush allowed it to become law without signing the bill. In Washington, the Bush administration has yet to make a patients’ right proposal, even though that has been identified as a priority by both the president and congressional Republicans.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.
Q No matter what?
THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
On March 17, 2003, with a possible resolution waiting in the wings, Bush announced he would not call for a vote, saying, "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
Originally posted by Otts
don guillermo - it's "he". And as I'm more interested in discussing Bush's lies than Majic's alleged lies, I'll leave you two to your little spat.