Bush Caught In A Major Lie

[Major Billy]

[quote=roxdog,]

Quote by: Major Billy, Quote by: [ÄK LËGÖLÄS] How do you know he didn't see the second plane hit the tower? if he saw the SECOND plane hit that would be TWO horrible pilots. That would also mean he's a moron, which anyone with a brain already knows.

Well, he wouldn't know it was the second plane just by seeing it on TV. He just said he saw an airplane hit the tower. That was replayed on TV many times.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
"no, there were no warnings that the intelligence at the time could have done anything about"


Really? So the huge scandall in the FBI that led to many people being fired and one to end up a Time Magazine "person of the year" for revealing the mistakes was in my dreams?

There was intelligence that if followed up on could have prevented the attacks. And Bush did exaggerate, possible outright lie, just not about the inspectors as it was stated here.

:rolleyes: as I said before, they had not committed any crime before they did... and you would have had them arrested or kept from flying? on what grounds? mere suspicion? could have prevented them from exersizing their rights... and yes, they had as much right to be on the plane as anyone else... that is where your prevention problem is...

He told us at the onset that Iraq was 6 months away from being capable of striking us with a nuclear weapon. within days, the source of this intelligence said "No, that is NOT what was in my report."

I stopped listening to Bush from that moment on for the most part since I didn't believe anything he said. I am not a Bush defender by any means, just looking for accuracy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[Zeebadee]

Read Bush's speech from Cincinnati (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html) then try and explain that he's not a liar. Even the best that the White House can do is to say that he didn't use the words "imminent threat". With routine overhead collection by satellites augmented by daily U-2 missions there wasn't a single inch of Iraq that wasn't photographed and investigated. "Thousands of tons" of WMD's would have to be well protected, even by saddam. It just wouldn't do to have something stolen and used against saddam himself, so if you can't find the WMD's themselves, just show us a few of the sites where these collectors showed where WMD's were stored. Or just show us some of the intel data that was "misinterpreted". After all, if the data was so totally wrong, it wouldn't compromise anything by publicly releasing it. Or did saddam just decide to throw all the "thousands of tons" into the back of a pickup truck and drive them over to Syria for storage? Completely undetected by all of our sensors, of course.

Prove you don't have WMD's? Ok, when you prove you never kicked your dog. What, you never had a dog? Ok, just prove that you never had a dog.

[rmnunez]

I don't know if you could establish from the timing of Bush II's utterances in the immediate aftermath of the impact whether he was aware of one or more planes being involved. I saw the video over and over again and can't really tell in most of the shots whether its the first or second plane, a shot of the WTC with a plane hitting it tells me nothing unless I can see the other tower already was hit.

I think the situation was pretty chaotic at first. I remember they shuttled the president around in AF1 to military bases, the cabinet was dispersed, Cheney hidden someplace. Airspace was sealed, commercial flights grounded and diverted, the navy sat off the eastern seaboard. The first impression I got was that the government acted as if under attack but could not identify the source. What on earth could be done in those first few minutes or hours after impact that wasn't?

[Impenitent]

[quote=Zeebadee,] "Thousands of tons" of WMD's would have to be well protected, even by saddam. It just wouldn't do to have something stolen and used against saddam himself, so if you can't find the WMD's themselves, just show us a few of the sites where these collectors showed where WMD's were stored. Or just show us some of the intel data that was "misinterpreted". After all, if the data was so totally wrong, it wouldn't compromise anything by publicly releasing it. Or did saddam just decide to throw all the "thousands of tons" into the back of a pickup truck and drive them over to Syria for storage? Completely undetected by all of our sensors, of course.
[quote]

finally someone gets it!

syria, iran, lebanon, saudi arabia, yemen... where did the wmds go?

and do you know why the canadian and mexican borders have not been totally sealed yet?

they will be soon enough... the next attack on america will make certain of that... and you have just given the administration (and the next ones) the excuse to EXPAND the war...

I am really suprized the conspiracy theorists haven't been preaching this one louder... :rolleyes:

[dotcoma]

I disagree. I don't think they will ever seal the borders. Leaving it open and handing out amnesty plays a key part of destroying American sovereignty. Viva la Raza...

[rmnunez]

How did Bush mislead and magnify the threat Saddam posed?

The Administration combined nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons into the expression "WMDs". Some see this as a ploy to combine the very high likelihood that Iraq had chemical weapons with the extremely low possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons as the same threat. This would dramatically alter cost-benefit discussions favoring intervention.

On October 7, 2002, Bush said </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
"the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 litres of anthrax and other deadly agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons..." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It would be more accurate to say UN found that Iraq had enough growth medium that could be used to produce more anthrax than it had declared (those 30,000 litres). The inspectors did not assert that Iraq actually had produced additional anthrax and there’s no dispute they found evidence Iraq did produce this WMD. So it would be more accurate to say Saddam produced anthrax (and other deadly agents) and could produce more than he’d admited. Specifying the number of litres would tend to magnify the sense of threat.

Bush also tried to suggest Saddam would transfer WMD capabilities or weapons to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. It would be more accurate to say he could transfer them. Some think this was a much more important element of Bush’s case for war since it enhances the sense of urgency to respond and effectively eliminated deterrence as a potential tool against Iraq. But no terrorist ties of this sort have been established. I remember reference to terrorist ties (and not just the story about Atta in Bulgaria) but it seems to me this was dropped early on (either because the intelligence proved inconclusive or because the case seemed compelling enough otherwise).

Some note how Bush’s disclosure of evidence was made without noting caveats and uncertainty present in intelligence assessments. Cheney said he knew "with absolute certainty" that Iraq was procuring materials for a nuclear enrichment programme. Powell told the UN Security Council that there was "no doubt" Iraq had chemical weapons. It is now known that the intelligence assessments were far less certain. Bush would have made a better case against intervention if he had inserted the proviso that none of this was unquestionably established and beyond a shadow of doubt, but his case was the opposite.

[Write Winger]

yeah Bush planned the whole thing to wipe out the economy so he could get re=elected easier...man some of you need some paxil

[cepjr61]

wow, dubya caught in another major lie? Alert the media! LOL Dubya in no way shape or form could have seen that first or second plane hit the wtc towers because it hadn't even been broadcast on any new channel yet. But it wasn't just dubya who lied, Bill Clinton also said he seen the same thing, trouble is, no coverage had been telecast when he claims to have seen it either. It still amazes me that the number of people that still deny the facts that dubya had prior knowledge about 9-11. If there's nothing to hide by this administration, then why all the secrecy and continued refusal to hand over critical documents that would put this issue to rest? Pretty much a no-brainer isnt it?

[cepjr61]

write winger, sounds like you've been on paxil for years!

[cepjr61]

Impenient, I've been preaching what you just said for years. Also, here's a news article to prove what I'm saying. This man Casey Nethercot was ordered arrested by arizona gov Janet Napalitano, under provisions of the Patriot Act. Casey has been arrested without any formal charges ever brought against him. See the story below. Think our rights are not gone, after reading this, I believe you will rethink that opinion.

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc...0724;title=APFN

Arizona Land Owner Casey Nethercott Arrested AGAIN!
Tue Mar 2 01:03:43 2004
64.140.159.61

Arizona Land Owner Casey Nethercott Arrested AGAIN!
(Received via e-mail on 2.29.04)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/RANCH_RESCUE...dAZ_040229.html

Everyone:

Please spread the word about our upcoming Convention here at Camp Thunderbird, Arizona on 17 April. We will assemble Citizens to vote on the establishment of the Arizona Citizens Militia, the election of a Commander, and the bylaws that will govern our conduct.

Our landowner host, Casey Nethercott, was again thrown into jail on Friday 27 February in Tucson. He had appeared in court for a hearing on his bond status while he awaits trial in Texas. The Assistant County Attorney in Jim Hogg County, Rudy Gutierrez, lied to the prosecutor here in Arizona and had Casey thrown in jail again. He was in jail for about two hours, and then was released when he pointed out to a judge that he had already posted bond in excess of the amount that the prosecutor was asking for.

The warrant for Casey's arrest on Friday was signed by the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napalitano herself. This was done under the provisions of the Patriot Act.

Casey has to appear in court in Tucson again Monday 1 March 2004, at 2:30 PM Arizona time. He fully expects to be thrown into jail AGAIN, despite the fact that he has already posted a bond to guarantee his appearance in Texas on 15 March 2004. Even though he has posted bond, the state of Arizona is abusing their powers under the Patriot Act to deny Mr Nethercott his Constitutional rights as a Citizen of the USA. What the state of Arizona is saying, in an indirect way, is that they are stripping Mr Nethercott of his Constitutional rights, simply because they now can.

This marks the end of Constitutional law in the state of Arizona, if not the entire nation. Our rights are now gone, and we can all now be summarily thrown into jail even though bail has already been posted and appearance has been guaranteed. What of our rights will they remove next?

If Casey Nethercott is put back into custody, the state of Arizona will then try to extradite him back into custody of Jim Hogg County in Texas. If Casey Nethercott ever is put back into the hands of the corrupt county government and county law enforcement of that group known as the "Texas Taliban", then they will attempt to kill him in jail. They tried to kill him while he was in their custody in March of 2003 by denying him insulin and spiking his food with sugar. This time, they are already planning to remove him from the jail in Jim Hogg County and keeping him hidden in a jail in another city, where he will be "disappeared".

Casey has already recorded a videotape statement that he will NOT "commit suicide" while he is in custody. We suspect that his captors will either try to fake his suicide, kill him by denying him insulin, or fake an "attempt to escape" and shoot him in his cell. We must not allow these tyrant bastards to get away with murdering a political prisoner in their custody.

If Casey Nethercott dies while in custody, under any circumstances whatsoever, we will call upon all Militia and Patriot Citizens of this nation to assemble here at Camp Thunderbird, Arizona on 17 April to discuss the formation of the Arizona Citizens Militia and to help us make plans for our fight against the forces of evil that are threatening every man, woman, and child in America. If Casey Nethercott dies in the hands of his captors, we intend to go to war.

Please spread the word.

[Mia]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,)
Read Bush's speech from Cincinnati (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html) then try and explain that he's not a liar. Even the best that the White House can do is to say that he didn't use the words "imminent threat". With routine overhead collection by satellites augmented by daily U-2 missions there wasn't a single inch of Iraq that wasn't photographed and investigated. "Thousands of tons" of WMD's would have to be well protected, even by saddam. It just wouldn't do to have something stolen and used against saddam himself, so if you can't find the WMD's themselves, just show us a few of the sites where these collectors showed where WMD's were stored. Or just show us some of the intel data that was "misinterpreted". After all, if the data was so totally wrong, it wouldn't compromise anything by publicly releasing it. Or did saddam just decide to throw all the "thousands of tons" into the back of a pickup truck and drive them over to Syria for storage? Completely undetected by all of our sensors, of course.

Prove you don't have WMD's? Ok, when you prove you never kicked your dog. What, you never had a dog? Ok, just prove that you never had a dog.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Now this is where he did the lying. They are using the term "emerging threat" now instead of "imminent" lol. Yeah, they're in Syria now. Our set-up to go attack them next. Great.

[Mia]

I'm out on the Patriot Act. It should be called the Gestapo Act. We dropped in our democracy ranking when we passed this.

All of us in this forum count as people they have the right to start watching under it's definitions. And if not, the definitions and applications are so broad it doesn't matter!

Scary stuff...

[Zeebadee]

Well, there was no big outcry of protest when a U.S. citizen (Jose Padilla) was arrested in the United States without any evidence ever being presented, held incommunicado without charge, and, in fact denied every protection of the Bill of Rights for nearly two years now. According to the press, Padilla had high level meetings with Al Qaeda big shots and was planning to build a "dirty bomb". Why Al Qaeda would want to meet with or confide in a common street hood from Chicago has never been explained, nor was the source of materials needed to build such a device. Nevertheless, the precedent has now been set for ANY American citizen to be secretly arrested and locked away without access to any of our Constitutional guarantees for merely being declared an "enemy combatant". At the proper time, "crimes against the state" will also warrant such treatment. We are on a slippery downhill slide.

[Mia]

Extremely slippery...and we are very far down it now. Under the new Patriot Act, things like you just described (which they did anyway before the legislation) can be applied to any one of us anytime.

A secret court can issue a secret warrent and they can come in your home while you are not there and toss your house. Arrest you without due process or informing anyone...basically a police state like the nations we go to war with over human rights.

Oh, but it's "only for terrorists". THAT'S reassuring!

[rmnunez]

The Padilla case is not completely resolved, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, they will hear an appeal, it is not possible to establish this case establishes the precedent any American citizen may be arrested and held without due process idefinitely.

Most analyses I've read on the legal impact of the Patriot Act and relateds is that the most draconian implications apply to foreigners and not US citizens. The war on terrorism has produced the questionable procedures applied to "battlefield detainees" and "enemy combatants" who are not members of any regular armed force and suspected of terrorism. When the suspects are also US citizens or have multiple nationalities there are bound to be procedural problems.

What is unreasonable is to figure suspected terrorists (regardless of nationality) should be handled in a manner indistinguishable procedurally from the way common criminals are prosecuted. Some reasons for these differences are obvious; terrorists are suspected of membership in some sort of organization of like-minded individuals and it would be preferable to prevent them from keeping in touch. Additionally, since there could be members of a criminal organization supporting the incarcerated suspect, prosecutors have to be 'cagey' about how to disclose evidence to sustain their accusation prior to prosecution.

Though the Patriot Act troubles me, I haven't found confirmed the forecasts of the critical lefty crowd; activists and dissidents aren't being swept off the streets and disappeared by the American military. Maybe it will degenrate to this, but until it gets a bit closer I'd think it wiser to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

[Mia]

I wanted to also...until I remembered I can't! Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all of that.

We'll have more examples than we want to prove it soon.

[Zeebadee]

"The Padilla case is not completely resolved...", "... it is not possible to establish this case..."

So, a mere 22 months in jail without any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to ALL American citizens is just "giving the government the benefit of the doubt", or simply a "procedural problem"?? What can you possibly be thinking of? This actually has nothing to do with Padilla, it has everything to do with establishing the executive branch's right to unilaterally declare someone a "combatant" and tossing them into the gulag. If the Patriot Act troubles you now, what will you feel when criticizing the government is declared detrimental to public order and gets you labelled an enemy combatant? The really scary thing is that the Bush administration may not even abide by a supreme court decision, they have defied the courts before.

"...activists and dissidents aren't being swept off the streets..."

Of course not, at least not right away. It has traditionally started with the least and worst of the citizenry. When the public has become accustomed to SOME of it's citizens being denied their Constitutional rights, it's much easier to justify similar treatment to ANY of them. Ashcroft and his ilk scare the daylights out of me. The greatest danger to all of us is not our declared enemies, but those that would "protect" us from them.

[Mia]

Absolutely. First, Arab-americans are in deep-doo. In times of "war" the administration can pretty much do whatever it wants. It's rarely exercised here, at least % wise.

But, rmnunez, when you say it doesn't affect "our citizens yet" there are two problems with that. One, people in our country who are not citizens are still entitled to human rights. 2)IT DOES affect our citizens right now. And not just our Arab-americans.

Anyone associated with the "wrong people", knowingly or unknowingly, can have their email and phones tapped into. My boyfriend is from Syria. He holds dual citizenship. This is a country the US is after right now. I'll bet a million dollars my privacy is gone right now along with his.

So I may not be being held in custody, but my rights are being trampled on if I am correct.

What if you chat with the "wrong person" on the internet and suddenly your private conversations are being listened to by the CIA?

I firmly believe that we have enough intelligence capability in our hands to avoid stripping ordinary citizens of their privacy.

I wasn't against the act at first - I was like you and wanted to trust my government. Then I thought through all the implications and the examples of abuse in the past every time things like this were given to people in power.

[rmnunez]

Mia, how unlikely do you think it is that your dual-nationaled Syrian boyfriend has any sort of terrorist connection? (don't answer that here) If your answer in any measure reflects your personal knowledge of the man, it is from knowledge the government lacks. If you were a government agent tasked to identify and track potential terrorists and found out about a male dual-national Syrian -with nothing more- would you look any further? I would look further, but I don't know the fellow as well as you do.

Part of the problem has to do with how the problem is approached. The more one sees terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, the less sense curtailments of civil rights in the US make sense. The more you see the current effort as a military exercise, the less sense concern over juridic procedural compliance makes.

Seems to me the problem is both military and law-enforcement. I don't expect American GIs to shout "freeze, you're under arrest" before shooting and think its silly to expect captive terrorists to be 'Mirandized'. How far can you go before it becomes outrageous? Seems like they are getting pretty close, but since we know the Supreme Court will hear Padilla, we can establish a 'line' of some sort is trying to get drawn; that US citizens arrested in the US may have more due process than (for example) Guantanamo detainees.

How do we deal with confronting witnesses or evidence? Properly the prosecution must put its cards on the table so the accused (presumed innocent) can mount his defense. In a terrorist context, doesn't it make some sense to limit showing a suspected terrorist how much is known about their activities? Terrorism implies group effort and some sort of organization to support their efforts. These suggests they meet, share information and make plans based on instructions, resources and developments among themselves. Providing the suspected member of an organization with information about who he met with, when and where might 'tip-off' other members of the terrorist's cell.

As a law-enforcement problem, prosecuting terrorism probably merits some curtailment of due-process guarantees even absent this whole post-911 scenario.

What I have seen of legal analyses focus on the distinction in rights availing to citizens and foreigners. Some rights are not contingent on citizenship rather than on location. There are fundamental, basic, universal rights which could be deemed to apply no matter what. Due process guarantees may or may not be fully within these universally applicable rights. It depends on which rights specifically are at issue and what other rights are implied. Take the privacy issue, if terrorism has a its lesser-included crime a conspiracy, how could this be shown without some invasion of privacy, wouldn't they need to have a mole, microphones, some sort of way to monitor the meetings and contacts before the fact? properly you get a warrant from some judge. The warrant needs to be fairly specific (location, parties and purpose) and then becomes a matter of public record. Can you see this applied without trouble in the terrorist context?

What I do think is a bit extreme is all this ranting and raving about the trampling of civil rights across America. Ridge isn't deploying stormtroopers already. Ecologists, homosexuals, pacifists, minorities, marxists and assorted fellow-travellers, even if publicly voicing sympathy for terrorists, are not being routinely rounded up and locked up indefinitely by the jackbooted thugs of some imagined Bushian fascist state. I see nothing to show the US is headed that way either.

Past history doesn't help much with this either. I suppose the internments of Japanese in WW2, and there were some cases involving labor unions and the War Powers act. Sedition and treason charges did abridge due process guarantees in Civil War litigation. There were instances of governmental abuse repressing anarchists and communists, but nothing like a trend or something that passed unnoticed. How many people do you think the US government could secretely arest and hold without outside contact before it became known? I suppose if we were talking about foreigners with few local ties, then there could be quite a few detainees held incommunicado, not ordinary citizens.