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 on Anti-Depressants

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermoBut if you comb through things like Presidential speeches and interviews, you sometimes find statements which you just KNOW are not true. After a little work with Google, if you are lucky, you find smoking gun evidence that Bush was lying through his teeth.


You don't even need that. This guy is so FOS that the stench can be smelled through the TV. I am totally amazed that the American voter is willing to CONSIDER giving him another 4 years. The way I see it Kerry= bad, Bush= worse.




posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
My very first ATS post was on Bush having some mild seizures.

Here is the thread.

EDIT: I fixed the link in the original post to the archived story wich includes responses to letters they received. (I did this at 20:28 EST)

Add that one to your collection RANT.


Don't know if I can vouch for the source but it makes interesting reading.


[Edited on 7/28/2004 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Honestly, after reading the anti-depressants and drug use, I feel sorry for the man if they are true.

But, I don't understand why this is in mudpit! It seems people are being fairly calm on this thread, and I think everyone else has a right to know without having to search for it on bts or through the subjects.

Its my opinion that he isnt crazy though, nor are the craziest of crazies, they just aren't normal like how we want to conceive of such.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Well, if you believe this article, then i guess you have to believe this one also:

cbn2.tripod.com...

These people have had it in for Dubya for two months now. See these links:

www.subcin.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think some are too likely to believe all they read.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Whether this broadsweeping coverage of Bush's mental health condition is accurate or not, we can be certain that his pill-popping will be of a much higher order when he is imprisoned.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I in researching facts about GW Bush am struck by the fact that a person would have to be kind of full of oneself to have to brave the endless public speaking engagements that a president is expected to have. One is under the microscope of hundreds of millions of people and in the spotlight of Billions of people. The pressure of it is amplified if you are trying to promote a particular agenda or ideology.

As much as I think Washington has become the cesspit of the irresponsibility of the American people and Bush is at the center of it, Anyone being president must be under tremendous pressures. You would need to surround yourself with intelligent, outspoken and bluntly honest people, but they would have to be somewhat gentle, understanding that the president is still just another human being. The trouble with GW Bush is he seems somewhat meanspirited and also closed to genuine input from others. When a ship begins to list all tend to distance themselves from the captain. And honestly I don't think much of Laura Bush, my impression is that nobody is really home there. He has a hundred million political allies, I'm not sure he has a single genuine friend.

As to the believability of the article, the fact that it still relies on un-named sources, means that no one has the spine to risk their positions (lives?) to come out and tell the facts, or that it is overblown or perhaps a simple lie. It leaves the whole story suspect.

I'm too afraid of him and his crew's ideology to feel one ounce of sympathy for him while he's in power. If he ever steps down from power gracefully, I hope he finds a quiet and private place to retire to.
.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Notice that there is not one verifiable fact about the drugs in the entire article? Sure, there are ‘expert testimonies’ by doctors, and ‘inside reports’ by white house aides, but it doesn’t amount to much more than second guessing and capitol hill rumors being passed off as fact. Sorry, but the whole thing seems pretty one sided to me.

I’ll admit that Bush has issues, but leading the country is not an easy task. Some people have to get it right every time. When they are in the spotlight, any mistakes they do make gets analyzed and criticized to the nth degree. I know that I would not want my past mistakes and private life paraded on TV for the country to see. But, I guess it’s par for the course for a president.

Bush lied? I don’t doubt it. But so did Clinton.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Well, if you believe this article, then i guess you have to believe this one also:

cbn2.tripod.com...


This is just evidence of the fact that Capitol Hill Blue is an equal opportunity scandalmonger. As I stated in linked comments, these people mercilessly bashed Clinton when he was in office. That fact pretty much discredits any claim that Capitol Hill Blue is a left-wing propaganda operation.


These people have had it in for Dubya for two months now. See these links:

www.subcin.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yes. As I previously stated, these people are disgruntled Republicans who are fed up with George Bush.


I think some are too likely to believe all they read.


I think some are too quick to dismiss any evidence which contradicts their deluded image of George Bush as a strong, competent leader. What if the story is true? What if George Bush really is a paranoid megalomaniac?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by para
Notice that there is not one verifiable fact about the drugs in the entire article? Sure, there are ‘expert testimonies’ by doctors, and ‘inside reports’ by white house aides, but it doesn’t amount to much more than second guessing and capitol hill rumors being passed off as fact. Sorry, but the whole thing seems pretty one sided to me.


If this story is true, I suppose you think White House aides and the White House physician are going to go on record with this information? You don't know whether this report is based on second guessing and rumors or not. Capitol Hill Blue claims they have inside sources at the White House. Do you know otherwise? As far as the report being one-sided, what would you suggest? That Capitol Hill Blue ask George Bush if there is any truth to reports that he is a paranoid megalomaniac?


Bush lied? I don’t doubt it. But so did Clinton.


NEWSFLASH! Bill Clinton is not President. Bill Clinton has been out of office for almost four years. Could someone please explain to me why, whenever Bush is criticized, the response is always either "Bill Clinton did it, too" or "It's all Bill Clinton's fault." Why do Bush defenders always want to change the subject to Bill Clinton?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   
If this is true we should all know shortly I'm not sure but I believe anyone running for office has to publish thier medical conditions including any prescription drugs they are on. Can anyone confirm this?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I said it before and I'll say it again: Either Bush is on too many drugs or not enough. Find your center, man!



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
If this story is true, I suppose you think White House aides and the White House physician are going to go on record with this information? As far as the report being one-sided, what would you suggest? That Capitol Hill Blue ask George Bush if there is any truth to reports that he is a paranoid megalomaniac?

Do I expect the aides to go on record? Well, it would be nice, but we don’t live in a perfect world. I understand that their careers could be risk if they share the information they have. The problem is, by staying off the record, no one is held accountable for the quality if the information. If they don’t want their name by it, they shouldn’t share it in the first place. Besides, how many of his aides have access to his medicine cabinet? How do they know what he’s taking? It would be all too easy for someone to misconstrue Bush taking some Aspirin and after it filters through the Capitol Hill rumor and the press, we end up with something like this.

Why don’t they question his physician? Or Bush? Is it because he might lie? He also might tell the truth, and it could be more mundane than anyone thought. But that doesn’t seem like something Capitol Hill Blue is interested in. As long as it fits their view of Bush as a “paranoid megalomaniac” they will do their best to pass it off as fact.

And you are right, I don’t know otherwise, about anything that they have reported, or their sources. But using the same argument, I could say that I have sources inside the White House who say that Bush is a lizard-man from Dulce who eats people. Do you have verifiable fact that he is not a lizard? Neither do I. Common sense would dictate that he is not, and that’s all I was using to try and debunk what clearly seems like a one-sided shot at the president.



Originally posted by donguillermo

Bush lied? I don’t doubt it. But so did Clinton.

NEWSFLASH! Bill Clinton is not President. Bill Clinton has been out of office for almost four years. Could someone please explain to me why, whenever Bush is criticized, the response is always either "Bill Clinton did it, too" or "It's all Bill Clinton's fault." Why do Bush defenders always want to change the subject to Bill Clinton?

The purpose of my post was in no way meant to blame anyone’s problems on Bill Clinton, nor was it an attempt to change the subject. You are right, Bill Clinton IS NOT president. However, he WAS president, and while he was president, he lied to the American public, plain and simple. The point being, neither Democrats nor Republicans have told us the complete and uncensored truth. It’s humorous to watch all the Democrats roast Bush after what the last Democrat in office did only a few short years ago.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
para says


It’s humorous to watch all the Democrats roast Bush after what the last Democrat in office did only a few short years ago.


It's also humorous to watch Republicans complain about all the Bush bashing, when they attacked Clinton from the day he became President, and for eight years did everything possible to drive him from office.

By the way, Clinton lied about his personal life. Bush has lied about official government business. No one died because of Clinton's lies. Bush's lies have cost over 900 American lives and $150 billion so far.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
No one died because of Clinton's lies.


If he would have dealt with Bin Laden properly...I suppose there are thousands of Americans AND Iraqis that would not have died. He was too busy trying to get some tail.


I also know there were casulties during Clinton, that just were not public. The Lincoln carrier group was there AFTER the Gulf War and when they returned....there was no ammo to off-load (mostly unheard of during supposed peace time) because we dumped it all on Iraq.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by donguillermo
No one died because of Clinton's lies.


If he would have dealt with Bin Laden properly...I suppose there are thousands of Americans AND Iraqis that would not have died. He was too busy trying to get some tail.


You are supposed to be refuting the statement that no one died because of Clinton's lies. Exactly which Clinton lie are you referring to that has anything to do with dealing with Bin Laden?

Are you referring to the Republican lie that Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, and Clinton turned down the offer? The 9/11 Commission found that there was no evidence that this fairy tale ever occurred.


I also know there were casulties during Clinton, that just were not public. The Lincoln carrier group was there AFTER the Gulf War and when they returned....there was no ammo to off-load (mostly unheard of during supposed peace time) because we dumped it all on Iraq.


Whether there were casualties during Clinton's Presidency is not the issue. The issue is whether any lies told by Clinton resulted in casualties.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
The issue is whether any lies told by Clinton resulted in casualties.


Well, I suppose violating the Executive Orders of the Presidency, to not engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders would be a lie. You DO remember all of the civilians that died in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and all his followers, don't you?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The CIA had ICs on the ground in Khartoum and elsewhere, taking pictures of bin Laden. They had even submitted Lethal Findings reports, but they were denied the ability to execute them. Failure to treat bin Laden as a threat, when his anti-American sentiments were known, did cost people their lives. Call it what you want.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by donguillermo
The issue is whether any lies told by Clinton resulted in casualties.


Well, I suppose violating the Executive Orders of the Presidency, to not engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders would be a lie. You DO remember all of the civilians that died in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and all his followers, don't you?


are you talking about Aidid? the orders given were not to murder him but to arrest him, perfectly legitimate and not violative of any executive orders so far as i know.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by para
The CIA had ICs on the ground in Khartoum and elsewhere, taking pictures of bin Laden. They had even submitted Lethal Findings reports, but they were denied the ability to execute them. Failure to treat bin Laden as a threat, when his anti-American sentiments were known, did cost people their lives. Call it what you want.


Sigh. This discussion got started because I made the statement that no one died because of Clinton's lies. Making arguments that people died because of actions that Clinton did or did not take is irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, at the time Bin Laden was in Sudan, there was no evidence that he was responsible for attacks against the U.S. Are you suggesting that Clinton should have ordered Bin Laden assassinated because he had anti-American sentiments?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by donguillermo
The issue is whether any lies told by Clinton resulted in casualties.


Well, I suppose violating the Executive Orders of the Presidency, to not engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders would be a lie. You DO remember all of the civilians that died in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and all his followers, don't you?


How did you ever get to be a moderator? You are posting nonsense. A lie is knowingly making a false statement. What executive order are you talking about? The President has the authority to cancel existing executive orders and issue new ones, so it is ridiculous to talk about Clinton violating an executive order. Clinton also eventually ordered the assassination of Bin Laden, although there is some dispute about that. Would you also call that a lie? Get a dictionary, please.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join