Proof of Bush's Lies - 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 03-27-2006, 07:15 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,341
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Proof of Bush's Lies

I just read this article.

The key points are that:
  1. Bush and Blair knew there were no WOMD and they had yet to find any in IRAQ;
  2. Bush was going to war with Iraq no matter what - he even "penciled in" a date, as if it was a lunch meeting;
  3. Bush was willing to incite a reason for war, such as faking a U.N. plane (to provoke an attack) or even suggesting the assassination of Saddam!

This appeared in the NY Times.

For the last few years, I've asked why Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair, while Bush was not. Republicans have stated that it's because Bush didn't "lie" - they went with the knowledge they had at the time. I think this document shows that Bush was lying through and through. This document proves that Bush should be impeached and removed from office. He created a war, when he had no reason to do so. He has cost the lives of thousands. Clinton's affair hurt no one. Tell me how Bush deserves to be in power.
__________________

__________________
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 03-27-2006, 07:24 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 PM
The difference is that Clinton was a Democrat, Bush is a Republican, and in both cases Congress is Republican. It's politics.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 07:39 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
The difference is that Clinton was a Democrat, Bush is a Republican, and in both cases Congress is Republican. It's politics.
Not really...

The difference is Clinton was under oath in a court proceeding.

It was not about being democrat, or republican. He would not have been impeached with just the republican vote alone.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 07:51 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Impeachment is a meaningless political maneuver. The two times it has been used are really a historical embarrassment.

Maybe Clinton should have said breaking the law is an executive privilege like Bush seems to think.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 08:40 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 08:14 PM
But was Clinton also protecting the nation, I mean, you can't have a President with blue balls, he is already stressed out enough so he was just easing his mind so he could concentrate on protecting the nation.

Actually, the fact that Clinton lied under oath is a big deal BUT it was about a consensual act between two adults which made it totally ridiculous. And looking back on it from a outside POV, it looks remarkably bizarre to see how much Clinton had to go through over a BJ while Bush is practically given a free ride for being a total wreck. US politics is odd.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 09:12 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 PM
OK, Clinton lied under oath. Not cool. But it doesn't look as bad to those of us on the left because Bush took us into a war we didn't support, and now there are thousands dead in Iraq, dead troops, etc, etc, because Bush lied about the reasons to go to war. I suppose maybe it's not politics. It's two wrongs, and two wrongs don't make a right. Clinton deserved to be impeached, and so, in my opinion, does Bush. The difference is that Clinton made his mistake with an act of sex that didn't hurt anyone while Bush's mistake cost thousands their lives.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 09:53 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
But was Clinton also protecting the nation, I mean, you can't have a President with blue balls, he is already stressed out enough so he was just easing his mind so he could concentrate on protecting the nation.

Actually, the fact that Clinton lied under oath is a big deal BUT it was about a consensual act between two adults which made it totally ridiculous. And looking back on it from a outside POV, it looks remarkably bizarre to see how much Clinton had to go through over a BJ while Bush is practically given a free ride for being a total wreck. US politics is odd.
It is not rediculous when investigating a pattern of the man using his office to badger women into sex.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 10:15 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


It is not rediculous when investigating a pattern of the man using his office to badger women into sex.
Completely biased.

You're telling me a president committing adultery is worse than a president sending men and women to die over a lie?

Come on!!
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 10:28 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


It is not rediculous when investigating a pattern of the man using his office to badger women into sex.
who got badgered into sex?

Monica completely went after Clinton

she had done the same thing with a married professor in college



and yes,

Bush and Cheney are completely dishonest, and disgusting


i am happy to say
quite a few of my conservative GOP friends
are beginning to see the light
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 10:59 PM   #10
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho

He created a war, when he had no reason to do so.
There is a reason but he wouldn't have generated widespread public support for going to war unless he created a clear threat people could relate to...WMDs.

People can't relate to the connection between the US dollar and oil underpinning their world domination. Oil exchange moving to the Euro, even slowly, will erode the US reserve status and the US markets and econmony are on shakey enough ground right now as it is. I don't think it's an accident that Greenspan's successor is an academic macroeconomist with emphasis on his Great Depression expertise.

I'm not really sure what the best diplomatic alternatives would have been to keep Saddam Hussein from selling oil in Euros but that is one thing the US simply will not allow anywhere...at all cost it seems.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 11:16 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
He created a war, when he had no reason to do so.
We're bringing freedom and democracy to people.

Just look at how well things are going.

Mission accomplished!!!
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 03-27-2006, 11:38 PM   #12
Refugee
 
JMScoopy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Near Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,268
Local Time: 06:44 PM
__________________
My Recordings
http://www.freewebs.com/jmscoopy
JMScoopy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 01:46 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,341
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


There is a reason but he wouldn't have generated widespread public support for going to war unless he created a clear threat people could relate to...WMDs.

People can't relate to the connection between the US dollar and oil underpinning their world domination. Oil exchange moving to the Euro, even slowly, will erode the US reserve status and the US markets and econmony are on shakey enough ground right now as it is. I don't think it's an accident that Greenspan's successor is an academic macroeconomist with emphasis on his Great Depression expertise.

I'm not really sure what the best diplomatic alternatives would have been to keep Saddam Hussein from selling oil in Euros but that is one thing the US simply will not allow anywhere...at all cost it seems.
Well, this is the "underlying reason" for going to war. I can't imagine that most people didn't already strongly suspect this - even the most conservative - after the Gulf War in the early 90's.

But this is not what's at issue. Clinton lied under oath - that is perjury. Is that reason enough for impeachment? The answer to that depends on what the lie was - and in this case, clearly no. In fact, if you recall the polls, Clinton had over 75% of the country behind him!! The vast majority of the people in this country thought it was ridiculous - and it was.

Bush did not lie under oath. But this document does show he lied. It proves that when he said the reason we are going to war is because Saddam is a threat and that Iraq is hiding WMD, he was lying to the entire country. He looked straight in the camera and said this. Clinton stated that "I did not have relations with that woman." Is receiving oral sex necessarily having relations? Clinton stated that he did not engage in sex with her. While I consider oral sex as sex (it's got the word "sex" write in the description!) I've met TONS of men who do not consider oral sex to actually be sex! These are well-educated men too, not some schumck 20-year old. So there is some flexibility with Clinton. But even if you don't believe him, honestly, his crime is miniscule compared to what Bush did. He was proposing tricking not just the U.S. people, but the people of Iraq - he was trying to provoke a war out of them. He was proposing the murder of Saddam to provoke a war. He and Blair knew that there was no legitimate reason for war - only greed. Yet, Bush is still hailed by some Republicans.

I hope this NY Times article is blasted around the world and boots Bush and Blair from power ASAP!
__________________
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 03-28-2006, 04:40 AM   #14
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 10:44 AM
Well there is LESS then 2 years and GWB can bumble his way into retirement and be a laughable/hated man who will prolly be run over on his farm and we will start cleaning up his mess!
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 09:47 AM   #15
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho

But this is not what's at issue. Clinton lied under oath - that is perjury. Is that reason enough for impeachment? The answer to that depends on what the lie was - and in this case, clearly no.
You know it's funny...there was an absolutely rabid witch hunt for Clinton's head on a platter and all they could come up with was some sexual indiscretions and inconclusive evidence on Whitewater. That's about as squeaky clean as a politician can get.

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho

Bush did not lie under oath. But this document does show he lied.
Again you have to weigh the consequences of the lie. Would you have been willing to let the US invade Iraq if you knew the alternative was the potential for a complete economic meltdown that would lead to the end of America's global superpower position?

When neo-conservatives were calling for an invasion of Iraq in 1998, that was the year the European Central Bank was established and developed the Euro. The EU is as wealthy as the US and is the world's biggest trading area. The writing was on the wall that unless action was taken to continue to dominate the oil trade, the US would eventually slip from the top.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy 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 06:44 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