Proof of Bush's Lies - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-29-2006, 08:56 AM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:41 PM
http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic60.jpg

dead
sexy
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 09:47 AM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Bush's moose knuckle






__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 10:04 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,978
Local Time: 06:41 PM
Uhoh, look out- diamond wil be ing
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 01:50 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:41 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 08:35 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House counsel John Dean said on Friday that U.S. President George W. Bush's domestic spying program raised more concerns about abuse of power than the Watergate scandal that toppled his boss Richard Nixon.

Dean, who served time in prison for his role in Watergate, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a seemingly futile Democratic bid to censure Bush for the eavesdropping program that is part of his war on terrorism.

"I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious," Dean, whose testimony three decades ago help lead to Nixon's resignation in 1974, said in support of the seldom-used measure to discredit a president.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 01:21 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,340
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Diamond: I know Bush will skate - codpiece or not.

The question, though, is why? Like many U.S. presidents who served two terms (and this goes back to the founding fathers), Bush's second term has been surrounded in controversy and scandal. The difference is that in Clinton's era, it seemed the Republicans were desperate to find something on him. When Whitewater fizzled, they leapt for joy at his lie under oath. Trouble is, the people of the country didn't support our politicians. Clinton had OCEANS of support - with an approval rating soaring in the 70% range (and higher). Most people felt that while he did lie, his lie was of a personal nature - not one of national importance.

In contrast, let's look at Bush's approval rating - one of the lowest ever. His fellow Republicans are now trying to distance themselves from him! Proving Bush lied is a challenge, which is why he's probably not being impeached. But I think the public knows best here. Bush should be glad this is 2006 and not 2004. There's no way he'd win a second term now.

As Bush can't win office any more, I doubt he cares about his approval rating, or the fact that his V.P. was involved in a company that overcharged Iraq in rebuilding, or that his spying was illegal, or that he's costing the lives of thousands. And this was all based on a lie he helped create.
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 03:34 AM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Bush would have lost the 2004 election if they had not covered up and lied.


Rove, Cheney, Libby are complicit in misleading and lying.


Quote:
Insulating Bush

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 30, 2006

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.

As the 2004 election loomed, the White House was determined to keep the wraps on a potentially damaging memo about Iraq.


Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush's claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.

The White House was largely successful in defusing the Niger controversy because there was no evidence that Bush was aware that his claims about the uranium were based on faulty intelligence. Then-CIA Director George Tenet swiftly and publicly took the blame for the entire episode, saying that he and the CIA were at fault for not warning Bush and his aides that the information might be untrue.

But Hadley and other administration officials realized that it would be much more difficult to shield Bush from criticism for his statements regarding the aluminum tubes, for several reasons.

For one, Hadley's review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.

For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon -- even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium.

And finally, full disclosure of the internal dissent over the importance of the tubes would have almost certainly raised broader questions about the administration's conduct in the months leading up to war.

"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 11:49 AM   #53
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
But I think the public knows best here. Bush should be glad this is 2006 and not 2004. There's no way he'd win a second term now.
I don't know about that. I'm sure that, even with the President's current approval rating, John Kerry would have found a way to lose.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 12:06 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:41 PM
ouch.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 02:20 PM   #55
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Bush would have lost the 2004 election if they had not covered up and lied.


Rove, Cheney, Libby are complicit in misleading and lying.


Sorry, but this is OLD news. All of this came out long before the election. The administration felt despite the warnings that it should be in the State Of The Union Address, and according to British intelligence, this was a sure thing. I don't see a cover up on this issue. If there was real hard evidence that the President lied about something, he would be impeached even with a majority Republican Congress.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 02:32 PM   #56
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
Diamond: I know Bush will skate - codpiece or not.

The question, though, is why? Like many U.S. presidents who served two terms (and this goes back to the founding fathers), Bush's second term has been surrounded in controversy and scandal. The difference is that in Clinton's era, it seemed the Republicans were desperate to find something on him. When Whitewater fizzled, they leapt for joy at his lie under oath. Trouble is, the people of the country didn't support our politicians. Clinton had OCEANS of support - with an approval rating soaring in the 70% range (and higher). Most people felt that while he did lie, his lie was of a personal nature - not one of national importance.

In contrast, let's look at Bush's approval rating - one of the lowest ever. His fellow Republicans are now trying to distance themselves from him! Proving Bush lied is a challenge, which is why he's probably not being impeached. But I think the public knows best here. Bush should be glad this is 2006 and not 2004. There's no way he'd win a second term now.

As Bush can't win office any more, I doubt he cares about his approval rating, or the fact that his V.P. was involved in a company that overcharged Iraq in rebuilding, or that his spying was illegal, or that he's costing the lives of thousands. And this was all based on a lie he helped create.
I'd be careful about claiming that Bush's current approval rating is one of the lowest ever. Check out these low approval ratings for these past Presidents:

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952


-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975

-Carter: 28% late June, 1979

-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983

-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992

-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993

-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005


* to date


Source: Gallup polls, 1952-1991; CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls, 1992-present.




The President is currently at 38% in the latest Gallup poll, up a percentage point from his November low point and higher than any other Presidents low point since World War II with the exception of Kennedy and Eisenhower.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 04:57 PM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
The President is currently at 38% in the latest Gallup poll, up a percentage point from his November low point and higher than any other Presidents low point since World War II with the exception of Kennedy and Eisenhower.


and many polls put him much lower, closer to 32%, and we're dealing with an increasingly polarized country, so it would be difficult for a president in this climate, of any party, to fall below 30%, and it's statistically impossible, really to fall below 10%. what's telling is how far Bush has tumbled with independents, and how Republicans are choosing to distance themselves from him for the 2006 elections.

there's much more to all this than Clinton at 37% early in his first term -- i think you make a mistake by comparing overall low-approval ratings and the comparison would be much more accurate were you to compare W with other 2nd term presidents, (and let's note the trumping by certain administration mouthpieces on this board of "Bush is the first president to receive a majority of votes" which would mean that anything below 50% spells disaster) which would put him far, far lower than Reagan and Clinton, and do note that most of those presidents who had poll numbers as bad as Bush were kicked out of office (Bush 1, Carter) or resigned (Nixon) or chose not to see re-election (LBJ).

in sum: this is bad news, and it might be uniquely bad news for a president at this point in his 2nd term *especially* with troops in harms way (there's always a rally-around-the-flag effect that Bush can't seem to hold onto).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 05:30 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:41 PM
wink



I511-
How was the movie?

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-01-2006, 06:50 PM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and many polls put him much lower, closer to 32%, and we're dealing with an increasingly polarized country, so it would be difficult for a president in this climate, of any party, to fall below 30%, and it's statistically impossible, really to fall below 10%. what's telling is how far Bush has tumbled with independents, and how Republicans are choosing to distance themselves from him for the 2006 elections.

there's much more to all this than Clinton at 37% early in his first term -- i think you make a mistake by comparing overall low-approval ratings and the comparison would be much more accurate were you to compare W with other 2nd term presidents, (and let's note the trumping by certain administration mouthpieces on this board of "Bush is the first president to receive a majority of votes" which would mean that anything below 50% spells disaster) which would put him far, far lower than Reagan and Clinton, and do note that most of those presidents who had poll numbers as bad as Bush were kicked out of office (Bush 1, Carter) or resigned (Nixon) or chose not to see re-election (LBJ).

in sum: this is bad news, and it might be uniquely bad news for a president at this point in his 2nd term *especially* with troops in harms way (there's always a rally-around-the-flag effect that Bush can't seem to hold onto).
The blanket statements though about how the Presidents low approval numbers have never been seen before are simply false.

What will people say if the Presidents approval ratings rise over the next couple of years? Unemployment continues to fall, and economic growth continues. In addition, things may take a turn for the better in Iraq with the formation of a government, and the Iraqi military taking over more control of the fighting. The Presidents poll numbers have obviously been battered by bad news in Iraq and Katrina. Good news would of course have the opposite effect and his poll numbers would rise. Lets not forget that Bush still has nearly 3 years left in office. Thats a lot of time.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 02:41 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
[BI511-
How was the movie?
[/B]


we didn't see it. we were invited to a BBQ centered around the Final Four (this being DC/NoVA, Mason are very popular, even though they beat my beloved UCONN) and never made the movie.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com