George Bush beware -

Started by Darth Revan11 pages

Julibug, notice that the national debt came into being under Bush, after he made those tax cuts. Even though the tax cuts helped some, (and i do mean some not most) they have destroyed our government. Here in Oregon we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, our schools are doing very poorly compared to what they were under the Clinton administration, and GUESS WHY? TAX CUTS!! Where else does the government get its money? From a magic crock of gold at the end of the rainbow? And also, regarding your comment about listening to the liberal anti-Bush people--I AM one of those liberal anti-Bush people.

As for the Israel situation, here's my opinion. When Clinton was president, the problem was THIS CLOSE *holds up hands half an inch from each other* from being solved. If he had stayed president for even a month longer we would no longer have this problem. And WHY you ask? Because he took the time to talk to both sides and see how they felt, then worked out a plan that would be mutually benificial. Arafat and Sharon were on good terms, as were the Jews and Palestinians. But then Bush gets into office and it's just a big mess again. He talked ONLY to the Israelis and put up a WALL to separate the two. Sound familiar? To me it sounds like Berlin. Also, he didn't talk to the Palestinians and make sure they agreed to his plan. AND NOW HE IS MAD BECAUSE THEY ARE "NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR END OF THE AGREEMENT?" They never said they were going to.
The very idea of establishing a "Jewish homeland" where the Muslims have now been living for thousands of years is absurd. I too am part native american. (Ojibwe, to be exact) I recognise that it was a terrible thing the "new americans" did to them, forcing them out of their homeland. But I also know that it would be terrible to force all of the modern americans out to give the land back to the indians. It would never work. And that's what they are trying to do in Israel.

Always Ask Yourself Who Benefits?

That's always the first question to consider when a "terrorist" attack occurs. Instead of clenching one's fist, waving one's flag and shouting vindictive slogans, let's just stop for a moment of calm analysis of the basic facts. When we analyze who benefits, we immediately will know with over 99% surety, who did it!

What was the tone of U.S. and world opinion just a week or two before the attacks?

In the U.S., the economy was lagging badly, the stock market was falling, many were questioning if the government's taxes were legal, the Gary Condit case had been poorly handled, people continued to question Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, they questioned our support of Israel in her policies regarding the Palestinians, and the approval rate of President Bush was low.

What about World Opinion? Just 8 days before the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Israel was stunned by a UN decision equating Zionism with Racism, according to Ha'aretz Daily.com.

Israel was branded a "racist apartheid" state by thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attending a U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. The conference was attended by representatives of 153 governments.

The declaration, adopted by 3,000 NGOs in 44 regional and interest-based caucuses, shocked Jewish groups.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres called the anti-Israel declarations a disgrace, and said that Israel was "seriously" contemplating withdrawing from the conference in protest. The Israeli delegation to the conference blasted the language of the NGO declaration as an incitement to hatred of Jews.

Jewish delegates walked out. The U.S. delegates followed.

The Forum accused the Jewish state of "systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing" in its treatment of the Palestinians.

In addition, the head of the Danish Red Cross, Freddy Karup Pederson, told the Danish Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee that the lifestyle of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories resembles that of whites under the former racist apartheid system. He also criticized Israel's collective punishment of the Palestinian population.

There is NO doubt that Israel is a racist state. Its own human-rights advocates call it that. The laws of the state of Israel allow a Jew anywhere in the world to become a citizen of Israel, but a Palestinian driven out of his own country, deprived of his home and all his possessions in 1948, cannot return. There are certain neighborhoods in Israel where a Palestinian cannot be issued a building permit, nor have the opportunity to buy or rent a home.

Wouldn't the ACLU scream racism if those laws were applied to the Jews - or to the Blacks - in this country.

The U.S. Was Set to Support Palestinian Statehood!

The Bush administration planned to promote and support the recognition of a Palestinian state in a speech to be given by Secretary Colin L. Powell, "but the plan was derailed by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," according on the Washington Post, Oct 2, 2001. Powell had planned to discuss the initiative with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States on Sept. 13!

Even AFTER the attack, on Oct.2, President Bush announced that creating a Palestinian state has "always" been part of the U.S. vision for peace in the Middle East. (WorldNetDaily, Oct. 2, 2001) This infuriated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who warned (threatened) that this could "backfire" on the U.S. and would possibly be counter-productive in the long run. Sharon then "compared the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s," which made President Bush "furious." (Jerusalem - Reuters Oct 5, and The Guardian, Oct 6)

So you can see that there is real tension between U.S. President Bush, whose family has been in the oil business with Osama bin Laden and bin Laden's family, (American Freedom News 10-3-01) and the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon.The Mossad, the Israeli spy agency equivalent of our CIA, has infiltrated the U.S. CIA, and for all intents and purposes, runs our CIA from behind the scenes, as former President John Kennedy found out when he attempted to dis-assemble the CIA in 1963 because of insubordination by the Israeli double agents working inside that organization.

To put it bluntly, Kennedy's head was blown off on television for the whole world to see, as a warning to any future president who might even think about resisting the aims of Israel.

Other reasons Kennedy was shot are: 1) He had signed a bill to print U.S.Treasury bills (as the Constitution requires) rather than Federal Reserve notes (what we are using now) which would have eliminated the Federal Reserve Banking system, a Central bank which is necessary for Israel to control the U.S. money supply. Look who owns and runs the Federal Reserve Banking system - Alan Greenspan and the other Wall Street Bankers whose allegiance is to Israel and a One World Government instead of an allegiance to America. (A Central Bank is one of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto)

By the way, the Federal Reserve Bank is NOT Federally owned. It is named "Federal" to deliberately mislead you. The Federal Reserve Bank is PRIVATELY owned, it has NO "Reserves", and it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. It is solely responsible for our "National Debt" which is fraudulent and criminal!

2) Kennedy had also signed an order to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. This angered the same group of bankers who make money off of wars by one group funding one side of the war, and another group funding the other side of the war - so they ALL make money. Besides, the war was demoralizing our country which greatly pleased these bankers, whose allegiance is NOT to America, but to International Jewry - and the ushering in of a One World Government.

3) Bobby Kennedy, the U.S. Attorney General and the President's brother, was imprisoning and deporting high level members of the Mafia, which was (and is) run NOT by the Italians, but by the Jews. At that time, Meyer Lansky was the Mob leader, and remember the movie about "Bugsy Siegel"? The name Siegel is NOT Italian.

Those are just a few of the motives for assassinating President Kennedy. For more information on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, read the book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, by Michael Collins Piper, published by Wolfe Press, Washington D.C. ISBN: 0-935036-47-4. Information on this book may be available by calling American Free Press at 202-544-5977.

There is also in-fighting within the the Israeli government itself. Evil ALWAYS causes dissension and unrest. "Israel's foreign minister, Shimon Peres, is accusing senior army officers of plotting to kill the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat." The extraordinary accusation is contained in an interview published in Yediot Ahronoth, a leading Israeli daily. Peres had worked out a cease-fire with Arafat but the "army began a mud-slinging campaign to undermine him." Mr. Arafat, during a visit to Egypt, said an agreement he reached with Mr. Peres last week, reaffirming a previous ceasefire, was being intentionally undermined by Israeli political and military officials." (The Telegraph Oct 2, 2001)

Israeli Foreign Minister Peres purportedly wants to make peace with the Palestinians while Prime Minister Sharon allows his military to undermine all of Peres' efforts.

"Middle East Truce in Tatters - Israeli Armed Forces Kill Six Palestinians in Retaliation," screamed the Jerusalem headlines (Reuters - Oct 4, 2001). The next day, on Oct 5, Israeli tanks and forces raided a Palestinian area of the West Bank city of Hebron, capturing positions and killing at least five Palestinians. (Reuters - Oct. 5, 2001)

So, just 8 days before the attacks, the overwhelming attitude of the nations of the world was against Israel's policies and in support of the Arab countries' charges against Israel, a nation heavily supported by, and allied with, the U.S.

Originally posted by GABRIEL05
yeah I actually feel bad for the troops. They are fighting under the worst conditions. Did you know that soldiers have less priority than highly classified documents in the military. Meaning if you (a G.I.) and some classified documents were drowning in the middle of the Pacific the papers would get rescued first.

I also feel bad for the troops. It's not their fault that they got sent off to Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are against the war.

So Urot what is all that supposed to mean I don't get it

Darth to put it simply this war in Iraq is about so much more than Iraq.

This war is about everything.

This war is about the American system; this war is about the global community; this war is about our economy; lies we have all been told for generations; this war is about 500 years of history; this war is about 500 years of the future. This war really is about everything.

President George W. Bush Jr. has lied to bring us to war with Iraq. Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies. So what does that mean?

Three basic ways to see this are:

1) No, he didn’t lie. If you believe that he lied then you are un-American. If you call the president a liar then you should leave the country; you should be ashamed. If you believe that the president is a liar then you are a horribly misinformed and misguided person that has no morals. We should all trust the president and have faith in him and our nation’s leaders.

If this is true then we have a lot of misguided Americans, and a world that is against the rest.

2) Yes, he lied. On top of that, the entire American system supported the lies; we have all been lied to for years by the American government, but that’s just the reality of life in the modern world. It’s not possible for the government to be honest and open with American citizens for a variety of reasons including national security. We all have to just put our trust in leadership in order to be safe and to be happy because the issues are too complex for the average citizen. National, and world, security depends on secrecy.

If this is true then democracy is dead, as uninformed puppets cannot govern themselves.

3) Yes, he lied, and the entire system supported his lies. Not just his lies, but lies that have gone on for generations in America, lies told by politicians and businessmen alike. Bush did lie, he cheated, and he stole, and his agenda may not be in the best interests of the American people or the people of the world.

If this is true then what does it say about our system? How did we come to this?

Bush team lied about intentions for war from the start

The greatest lie of the Bush administration is a lie of omission. During George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign he stated that he was against "nation-building", and he never gave any indication that he had any plans for military action involving the Middle East. Bush made several statements about national-building, including:

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."

The issue here is that the Bush "team", the future Bush administration, was already put together. It was a team of some of America's largest proponents of preemptive warfare and proponents of an invasion of Iraq in order to oust Saddam Hussein and impose US influence in the Persian Gulf. This is not just a case of saying one thing at election time and doing another once in office, this is a case of premeditated action. The Bush administration is a war cabinet that was put together with all of the most prominent advocates of war with Iraq. It is certainly not chance that George Bush just happened to select these people for his cabinet, and then we were attacked and evidence just "came to light" that Saddam was now a threat that had to be dealt with, however this is exactly how it was portrayed to the American people, and the world.

In 1992, shortly after Desert Storm, Dick Cheney, then the Secretary of Defense, began drafting a foreign policy plan that was geared towards American military global preeminence and American control of the Middle East.

In 1998 the Project for a New American Century wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. That letter was signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

10 of these 18 signers hold positions in the Bush cabinet today.

In 2000 The Project for a New American Century completed a draft, which they started in 1998, of their vision of the future of American foreign policy for the Bush administration.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

This plan for the Bush administration is a “blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.

This plan calls for American dominance in the Gulf region whether or not Saddam is in power, but admits that Saddam is a good excuse to take power, by stating: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

This plan sets fourth a clear goal for America to take control over all global resources possible and to maintain that control through military means and through the manipulation of local political forces. This plans states that purely American interests should be the primary consideration in all American foreign policy.

“Today, that same security can only be acquired at the ‘retail’ level, by deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles. “

”America’s strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals.”

”American containment strategy did not proceed from the assumption that the Cold War would be a purely military struggle, in which the U.S. Army matched the Red Army tank for tank; rather, the United States would seek to deter the Soviets militarily while defeating them economically and ideologically over time.”

”…while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate.”

The plan clearly recognizes that weapons of mass destruction are strategic tools used by the countries now called the “Axis of Evil” to protect their own local interests from American intervention. What is important to note about this is that this is not how the situation is portrayed to the American public. Again, its not a matter of whether or not you agree with the policy in question, the issue is that this is the policy that is in use yet it is not the policy that the Bush cabinet claims is in use. The motivation for war that was given to the public by the Bush administration centered on protecting Americans from direct harm. What this policy states is that military intervention in Iraq is needed not to protect the lives of American from direct harm, but to prevent regional powers from developing military means that allow them to control the economic and political climates in their own regions.

This plan, which was developed for the Bush administration, claims that today, while America has possibly the most powerful military advantage of any country in the history of the world over its “adversaries” and that while America currently spends more money on its military then the next top 20 military spenders in the world combined (most of which are our allies), the American military is still woefully under funded.

Relative Military Spending by the nations of the world, ca. 2003:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/usaworld.htm

This plan goes on to state that the goal of the American military should be that of being able to wage simultaneous multi-theater large-scale warfare. This means that the goal of the American military should be that of being able to wage global war all by itself.

In addition Wolfowitz and Libby, two members of the Bush cabinet, have drafted plans that state that the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

It cannot be any more plain that their vision of US strategy for the 21st century should be global domination, not that of a global partner, but that of a global dictator.

In addition, the Statement of Principles for the PNAC is endorsed by Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Read those names carefully, you will be seeing them again.

Even if you agree with the plans of the PNAC what you do have to recognize is that the current Bush administration is a war cabinet. The Bush administration was put together prior to 9/11/2001. At the very least what can be said is that George W. Bush Jr. had the intentions of going to war with Iraq during his presidential campaign. Given this fact it is important to note that he did not campaign on this fact, and in fact he campaigned against nation building.

This is where the lie comes in. He committed a lie to the American people of the gravest magnitude. It was a tremendous lie of omission. The American people that did vote for Bush (and that is another topic of debate of course) didn’t vote for him on the premise that he was going to jump into office and wage war on Iraq and work to further global American military and economic dominance. If he had told America the truth about this plan to wage war on Iraq from the beginning it is doubtful that he would have even been close to being elected. Instead he and his affiliates lied and kept the plan quite until after he was in office.

Not only that, but even since the issue of war with Iraq has come up the administration has still never publicly discussed this agenda, they simply make claims about weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, patriotism, God, and the liberation of Iraq. These comments were never satisfactorily supported prior to entering into war with Iraq.

These facts make it clear that there was a plan to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened on September 11th 2001. George Bush and Dick Cheney were dishonest from the very start about the most serious subject in the world, war. Whether you agree with the war or not there is no way to deny that fact.

Oh and checkout some of these sites. Some are meant to be funny, but most are serious.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20020626/index.php
http://www.informationtimes.com/
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.guerrillanews.com/
http://www.disinfo.com/site/
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/usplan.htm
http://www.rense.com/general30/cart.htm
http://www.adl.org/durban/draft.asp
http://www.allianceforlifelonglearning.org/er/lg/IsraelPalestine2K2.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/road_to_the_brink/29099.stm
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAY209A.html
http://www.adl.org/durban/durban_ngo.asp
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/isr-s06.shtml

Enjoy. 😉

Urot, is there a reader's digest condensed version of your post?

Yes.

BUSH IS A IDIOT! 😛

*** Sorry guys for my long winded babbling. ***

Just checkout the above links. 🙂

Originally posted by Friend44
Urot, is there a reader's digest condensed version of your post?

😆 hahahhahaaa''readers digest'' lmfao!

Originally posted by -=Urot=-
Yes.

BUSH IS A IDIOT! 😛

*** Sorry guys for my long winded babbling. ***

Just checkout the above links. 🙂

👆 ✅ he sure is...

i'm great, make me president

yeah, i am great...

Bush is a total idiot. I read in the paper today that he has already pissed of the queen before he has even arrived here in england. He brings all of this technology crap wherever he goes and when he installs it here it's gonna f*** up the queens television so that she can't watch her favourite programmes like eastenders. It takes a lot to piss off our queen but if anyone can do it, it's George! 😂 😂 😂

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Julibug, notice that the national debt came into being under Bush, after he made those tax cuts. Even though the tax cuts helped some, (and i do mean some not most) they have destroyed our government.

There was already a national debt. Has been one for a very long time.

The tax cuts helped the economy as a whole. It may take longer in certain areas than others to show up.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
As for the Israel situation, here's my opinion. When Clinton was president, the problem was THIS CLOSE *holds up hands half an inch from each other* from being solved. If he had stayed president for even a month longer we would no longer have this problem. And WHY you ask? Because he took the time to talk to both sides and see how they felt, then worked out a plan that would be mutually benificial. Arafat and Sharon were on good terms, as were the Jews and Palestinians. But then Bush gets into office and it's just a big mess again. He talked ONLY to the Israelis and put up a WALL to separate the two. Sound familiar? To me it sounds like Berlin. Also, he didn't talk to the Palestinians and make sure they agreed to his plan. AND NOW HE IS MAD BECAUSE THEY ARE "NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR END OF THE AGREEMENT?" They never said they were going to.
The very idea of establishing a "Jewish homeland" where the Muslims have now been living for thousands of years is absurd. I too am part native american. (Ojibwe, to be exact) I recognise that it was a terrible thing the "new americans" did to them, forcing them out of their homeland. But I also know that it would be terrible to force all of the modern americans out to give the land back to the indians. It would never work. And that's what they are trying to do in Israel.

I think the situation in the middle east can be compared to the native americans/modern americans in some aspects, but it is really a different situation. However, having said that, I don't necessarily agree with they way Bush is handling that situation. Like I said in a previous quote, I don't know of an easy answer for it. There has to be a way for both peoples to occupy that area.

Originally posted by ab012f9448
Bush is a total idiot. I read in the paper today that he has already pissed of the queen before he has even arrived here in england. He brings all of this technology crap wherever he goes and when he installs it here it's gonna f*** up the queens television so that she can't watch her favourite programmes like eastenders. It takes a lot to piss off our queen but if anyone can do it, it's George! 😂 😂 😂

That actually is quite amusing.

Hopefully in a few months, the Iraq situation will be mostly over...

http://www.foxnewschannel.com/story/0,2933,103168,00.html

Then to the next chapter in the war on terror.

Im afraid i cannot see America being right...im sure there are many american people who didnt want to go to war, and Bush took them to war either way...same with Tony Blair..😒 im alergic to him..a lot! He did the same with British people..took us all to war, even though people didnt want to...

Well, some day there will be no more war. Let's just pray for that day to come soon!