Proof of Bush's Lies

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

doctorwho

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Jul 31, 2000
Messages
6,367
Location
My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
I just read this articlehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006032...vRqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl.

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.
 
The difference is that Clinton was a Democrat, Bush is a Republican, and in both cases Congress is Republican. It's politics.
 
verte76 said:
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.
 
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
 
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.:wink:

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
trevster2k said:
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.:wink:

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 said:


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!! :rolleyes:
 
Dreadsox said:


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
 
doctorwho said:

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.
 
doctorwho said:
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!!!
 
Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

AliEnvy said:


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. :tsk: 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!
 
Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

doctorwho said:

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.

doctorwho said:

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.
 
If the importation of oil is that closely tied to the Euro and, subsequently, the U.S. economy - then it is just a matter of time before this happens anyway. At some point, we must break free of oil. Besides, how much oil do we actually get from Iraq? And would OPEC really allow their "biggest customer" to become upset?

I do agree with your earlier statement. It seems from Day 1, Republicans were after Clinton, trying their best to get him out of office. Yet all they could find was some possible weak trading scandal (White Water), which fizzled and then this sexual lie. That's it. Given that Cheney has direct ties to Bin Laden and given Bush's own involvement with oil, one wonders just how dirty these men are? Clinton was a relative Jimmy Carter - and it seems the Republicans couldn't wait to boot Carter from office too!

While I don't think Democrats are innocent, it's pretty obvious who the real evil empire is.
 
doctorwho said:
If the importation of oil is that closely tied to the Euro and, subsequently, the U.S. economy - then it is just a matter of time before this happens anyway.

That true. So you have to ask yourself how much of a fight you are willing to put up to maintain your position for as long as possible or whether you want to concede power to develop win-win trade and economic relationships.

Btw, when the EU becomes the dominant economic power over the US, Russia effectively wins the Cold War.

doctorwho said:

At some point, we must break free of oil.

Yes for a number of reasons. But on the financial front, a break between the dollar and oil anytime soon effectively means the US domestic economy would collapse under the trade deficit and debt load (at the public and personal levels) it's currently carrying. That would end up leading to a global economic crisis.

doctorwho said:

Besides, how much oil do we actually get from Iraq? And would OPEC really allow their "biggest customer" to become upset?

OPEC already allowed Iraq to sell oil in Euros and ok'd the Iranian oil bourse. They are encouraging a gradual transition from the dollar to the euro that would minimize the effect on the dollar and US economy. But at the end of the day for the US, it still plays into a broader power struggle with Russia, China and India.

Republicans, Democrats and the media don't talk about this because the economy is too fragile to withstand the potential drop in investor/consumer confidance and spending.

I've come to believe this is why the dems have been mute and unable to present a vision for getting out of the mess in a way that people would understand and support.
 
Last edited:
doctorwho, is the main problem that Bush lied or that U.S. went to war based on lies, or that there's a war at all? What do you think of Bush Administration's philosophy of pre-emptively taking care of threats to America?

Do you think the war would have been more palatable (to the American public, never mind the rest of the world) if the administration hadn't gone through this whole "Wag the Dog" invention of a WMD threat? If Bush Co. had just said "Look, Saddam is a U.S. problem. We helped create him...propped him up so he could counter the Iranians during Khomeini's reign. But now he's a threat to us and our interests (economic and geo-political). As the world's main superpower, it's our responsibility to take care of our messes, so we're taking him out."...would that have been better?
 
Judah said:
doctorwho, is the main problem that Bush lied or that U.S. went to war based on lies, or that there's a war at all? What do you think of Bush Administration's philosophy of pre-emptively taking care of threats to America?

Do you think the war would have been more palatable (to the American public, never mind the rest of the world) if the administration hadn't gone through this whole "Wag the Dog" invention of a WMD threat? If Bush Co. had just said "Look, Saddam is a U.S. problem. We helped create him...propped him up so he could counter the Iranians during Khomeini's reign. But now he's a threat to us and our interests (economic and geo-political). As the world's main superpower, it's our responsibility to take care of our messes, so we're taking him out."...would that have been better?

Judah,
if your saying it was right to go after Saddam becauase we "pre-emptively" hit a Dictator who was a threat to America - where does Bin Laden fall in your 'List of Pre-Emptive" strikes. Is he after Saddam or after Iran or N. Korea. The perpatrator of the worst terrorist act to come to our shores is still living and breathing is just apalling to me.

Your answer to the earlier post was to suggest we "pre-emptively" hit Saddam who DIDN'T have WMD's and had no connection to Al Qeada. Wouldn't have been better to hit N. Korea or Iran who actually we know has nuclear capabilities AND are still rattling thier swords at everyone?
 
YBORCITYOBL said:


Judah,
if your saying it was right to go after Saddam becauase we "pre-emptively" hit a Dictator who was a threat to America - where does Bin Laden fall in your 'List of Pre-Emptive" strikes. Is he after Saddam or after Iran or N. Korea. The perpatrator of the worst terrorist act to come to our shores is still living and breathing is just apalling to me.

Your answer to the earlier post was to suggest we "pre-emptively" hit Saddam who DIDN'T have WMD's and had no connection to Al Qeada. Wouldn't have been better to hit N. Korea or Iran who actually we know has nuclear capabilities AND are still rattling thier swords at everyone?

Yeah, no, i wasn't really suggesting anything. For the record, i have always been against the war.

I was just asking doctorwho the questions. It seems to me Bush was bent on taking Iraq out no matter what. The Administration was going to do it...the point was how to sell it. My questions are only about that: would the Administration's goals be more palatable to the American public if they'd been just very upfront about it. "We feel Saddam is a problem we created and we're going to get rid of him. End of story."

And, yes, I agree that, if someone were to follow the "pre-emptive" philosophy, there are other threats that are way more serious. As you said, Bin Laden, and Iran (though, they're probably 10 years away from becoming a serious nuke threat), and for sure Pakistan.
 
Judah said:


Yeah, no, i wasn't really suggesting anything. For the record, i have always been against the war.

I was just asking doctorwho the questions. It seems to me Bush was bent on taking Iraq out no matter what. The Administration was going to do it...the point was how to sell it. My questions are only about that: would the Administration's goals be more palatable to the American public if they'd been just very upfront about it. "We feel Saddam is a problem we created and we're going to get rid of him. End of story."

And, yes, I agree that, if someone were to follow the "pre-emptive" philosophy, there are other threats that are way more serious. As you said, Bin Laden, and Iran (though, they're probably 10 years away from becoming a serious nuke threat), and for sure Pakistan.

Well Said :up:
 
Judah said:
But now he's a threat to us and our interests (economic and geo-political). As the world's main superpower, it's our responsibility to take care of our messes, so we're taking him out."...would that have been better?

I suppose that depends on whether you think people would truly understand the consequences of going to war or diplomatically taking steps to protect the economy while conceding to be one of many superpowers as opposed to top dog. Remember, the easiest way for a politician to lose an election is to talk plainly about economic issues and outcomes.


Why of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship . . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
--Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshal and Luftwaffe chief
at Nuremberg trials, 1945
 
deep said:


who got badgered into sex?

Don't treat me like I do not know what I am talking about. You and I know they were trying to demonstrate a pattern of him usuing his position for sex. Or were the women that came forward lying.
 
Dreadsox said:


Don't treat me like I do not know what I am talking about. You and I know they were trying to demonstrate a pattern of him usuing his position for sex. Or were the women that came forward lying.

So which is worse then, Clinton using his position of power for sex or Bush using his position of power to propogate American imperialism to the point of national self-destruction?
 
Dreadsox said:

Or were the women that came forward lying.

I found Juanita Broadderick to be a very credible person and she is what turned me against Clinton.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

AliEnvy said:


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.



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.

For the countries that actually use the Euro, their combined GDP is 9 Trillion dollars, while USA GDP is currently 12.8 trillion dollars. Most EU members do not use the Euro currently and many of those countries are still considered to be developing countries by many people.

In addition the United States and European economies have been interdependent for decades and a fall in one area would mean a fall in the other economy as well. China is dependent on the United States as market for its exports which bring in Billion of dollars every year for China and constitute a much higher percentage of its annual GDP than do the level of American goods sold to china relative to American GDP. The point here is that any slip in the American economy has a negative impact on both Europe and East Asia.
 
doctorwho said:
I just read this articlehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006032...vRqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl.

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.

1. I don't see where it says Bush and Blair knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Every intelligence agency around the world had information that there was WMD in Iraq, regardless of the fact that Inspectors had yet to find any in the months before the war or after.

2. Considering all the things that Saddam was still in violation of, thats probably true, unless Saddam solved those problems and or left the country. But everyone knew this at the time.

3. The planes are already on a UN mission and its illegal for Saddam to fire at the planes. I don't see how painting the planes with UN markers makes any difference.



Is the Memo considered to be an actual transcript of what was said or is it just a general summery?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Maoilbheannacht said:

In addition the United States and European economies have been interdependent for decades and a fall in one area would mean a fall in the other economy as well. China is dependent on the United States as market for its exports which bring in Billion of dollars every year for China and constitute a much higher percentage of its annual GDP than do the level of American goods sold to china relative to American GDP. The point here is that any slip in the American economy has a negative impact on both Europe and East Asia.

That's correct...and all the more reason to to build multilateral treaties on global monetary policy and energy reform. I think Bush has made it clear that his administration will do no such thing and would prefer to create conditions that could instigate WWIII rather than foresake the empire.

What would you be willing to give up in your current standard of living to avoid WWIII?
 
Last edited:
I don't want WWIII, but I don't think Bush even cares if it happens because of his religious views. The whole scenario scares me.
 
Back
Top Bottom