Even if they were never voted in? ouch!!! I knew that shot was coming though...lol. Look guys, the Bush/Hitler comparison by MacBeth was not a direct comparison. He was comparing the way Bush may have misrepresented (notice I did not say lie) the facts for what he believed was the betterment of our country. Hitler's m.o. was similiar. Just a comparison of the 'means'. That's it. Let's move on. Congress gave the president the power for pre-emptive wars after 9-11. Why are we debating whether or not Bush was wrong for a pre-emtive war? The issue at hand should be; Did Bush KNOWINGLY mislead Congress, the public and the rest of the world in when making his case for war. Back to the thread topic: IF (big if) the Bush admin is found to have mislead the world, is that worse than Watergate? Well, hell yeah!!! However; Watergate is 3rd on the list in my opinion. No.1 Bush lying to the World (if he in fact did lie.....and I'm not willing to concede that). - Bad for the world No.2 Clinton lying under oath. (C'mon....he did lie. Period. What good is an oath if the President can lie and get away with it.) - Bad for the U.S. No.3 Watergate. (Cheating in electorial campaigns....Oh my gosh...lol) - Bad for Nixon. He just got caught.
watergate was a little worse than campaign hijinks, the president had his own private squad of thugs as part of "CREEP" (the committee to reelect the president) running around committing burglies and stuff on his behalf. (*waits for somebody to accuse clinton of doing even worse)
Bigman: Where's Iran Contra on your list? It included repeated lying under oath. Worse than Watergate and worse than Clinton's thing. And, if the Bush stuff pans out, probably still worse than that.
lol... Iran/Contra? Right above Watergate. Should've included that one. Look, call me crazy, but I consider an oath, taken 'under god' if you will, by THE President something sacred. Our whole legal system is based on testimony given under oath. I'm not naive enough to believe that no-one else lies under oath. But the friggin President ?! Iran/Contra - Arms for Hostages...in a round-about way. It has not been proven that Ollie was directed by Reagan to carry it out. At least not that I know of. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on that. (..but I did see 'Ollie' with David Keith ....lol - j/k)
OH, well they eventually got Nixon for the cover up too, don't worry, there was a healthy amount of sin and lawbreaking of all kinds going around with regard to watergate. I tend to think that the president running a racketeering operation out of the oval office trumps it but to each his own. You do realize that one of reasons why they did all this stuff with the burglaries and the dirty tricks squad (that was part of CREEP) was because Nixon thought that there was a Jewish-Communist conspiracy out to get him? right? Read some of the transcripts of the Nixon tapes sometime, that stuff is just crazy!
Lol.... I beleive that he really couldn't recall. He probably couldn't recall what he had for breakfast that morning
I have to say... I know very little about Iran/Contra. I remember I was in elementary school or junior high at the time...never really learned about it in school. I do remember watching some of the hearings, as it was all over daytime TV at the time. During the summer if I remember right.
Quite a story Not sure if the link works but I was trying to learn a little bit more about the Iran Contra scandal. If this outline is remotely close to the truth, then I'd say everything and anything we know about our government more closely resembles something from the 'conspiracy' thread. -------------------------------------------------- The BIG SKY PATRIOT A CIA FUNDING OPERATION by Gene "Chip" Tatum 12/28/96 Step 1: Find a depository which fits the following criteria: 1. Large cash reserves. 2. Much of the cash reserves should represent deposits from an illegal activity (ie. drug transactions). For this example we will use Banco Nacional de Panamá, a depository which is protected by General Manuel Noriega. The depositor will be Pablo Escobar. Finding the proper depository would be the function of the CIA, and in this example we will use William Casey. Step 2: Arrange for a loan from this depository. We will use the name of George Bush in this example for the person obtaining the loan. We will use the amount of $8 billion for this example. Sometimes the depository will not be very cooperative. If this occurs, the CIA will coerce or intimidate the depository officials into cooperating. Ultimately, the loan will be made. Step 3: Split the loan proceeds in half. One half ($4 billion) will be sent to Iran to purchase "super bills" at the rate of two "super bills" for one authentic bill. Thus, $4 billion in cash buys $8 billion in "super bills." (NOTE: A "super bill" is a perfectly counterfeited U.S. bill. These bills are printed by an Intaglio press which was sold to the Shah of Iran in the late '60s, early '70s. The Shah was also given the plates, ink and paper necessary to successfully print U.S. dollars in large denominations. This was given to the Shah by the CIA. Unfortunately, the Shah left the press, plates, ink and paper for the Iranian Revolutionary Councils when he fled in late 1978.) The second half of the loan ($4 billion) will be sent to a CIA launderer selected by the CIA (Casey) for his or her ability to move large sums of money around the world as a matter of ordinary business. For this example we will use the name Nana Debusia. (Debusia is the grandson of Guyana's first democratic leader and owner of many U.S. and foreign banks.) Step 4: Repay original loan to depository in "super bills." (Give Banco Nacional de Panamá $8 billion in "super bills" to replace the authentic currency it loaned.) These "super bills" are placed in the reserve vault and, as long as they are not withdrawn by the depositor, their existence will not jeopardize the value of the U.S. dollar. But, because they are perfect in every way, to put the "super bills" in circulation would eventually devalue the U.S. dollar by flooding the monetary marketplace with U.S. currency. Step 5: Arrange to sell Iran something of value for the authentic currency used to purchase the "super bills." In this example, we will use arms, ammunition and replacement parts for military equipment. (We will use the name Oliver North as the example of a person arranging the sale of arms to Iran.) In other words, the CIA now arranges to sell Iran $4 billion worth of arms and equipment in order to get the original $4 billion of authentic currency back. Now, the CIA has $4 billion to use in funding covert activities without relying on Congressional authority and funding. If caught, the CIA can report the source of funds as being from an arms transaction with Iran. Step 6: Ensure that the "super bills" are not withdrawn. This is done through the process of neutralization of the depositor. Neutralization is the use of intimidation, coercion or intimidation. In this example, Pablo Escobar is killed. Step 7: This CIA launderer in possession of one-half of the original loan proceeds is moving his $4 billion through a maze of banks which are cooperative with both the launderer and the CIA. For this example, we will use the following trail of deposits to banks: a bank in Spain; the Vatican Bank; banks in Luxembourg. Then the launderer wires from his London offices $3.8 billion in laundered monies to private numbered accounts being controlled by the original architects. The launderer keeps $200 million for his job well done, leaving the $3.8 billion in the numbered accounts. Step 8: Neutralize the CIA launderer. In this example Nana Debusia was indicted by the U.S. on 32 counts to include bank fraud. The CIA stepped up in his behalf and stated that it would not be in the best interest of the U.S. to prosecute Debusia. He was facing several hundred years in prison if convicted. He was subsequently acquitted on all counts. CIA TALLY $4 billion for use in unauthorized black ops* (*black operations are those covert operations performed without the knowledge or authority of Congress.) $3.8 billion in private numbered accounts controlled by the architects of the funding operation. SUMMARY OF THE EXAMPLE To summarize the example, the Director of the CIA, William Casey, approached the Ex-Director of the CIA and current Vice President of the United States, George Bush, with the name of a vulnerable depository, the Banco Nacional de Panamá. Vice President Bush then arranged for a short term loan of $8 billion. Bush arranged for $4 billion to go to Iran to purchase super bills and $4 billion to go to Nana Debusia to be laundered into several private accounts. He (Bush) commissioned Oliver North to oversee the Iranian connection. North delivered $4 billion in U.S. currency to Iran. Iran gave North $8 billion in super bills in exchange for the $4 billion in good U.S. currency. North then delivered the $8 billion in super bills back to the Banco Nacional de Panamá. The loan transaction is now complete. There is $8 billion in super bills in the reserve vaults of the Banco Nacional de Panamá, there is $4 billion in authentic U.S. currency in the hands of the Iranians, and there is $4 billion in good currency with CIA launderer Nana Debusia. North sells the Iranians military hardware and parts for the amount of $4 billion and diverts a portion of the proceeds to the Contras of Nicaragua (Iran/Contra). Nana Debusia, in the meantime , is laundering the deposits of $4 billion through various banks, including the Vatican's bank in Italy. After several successful banking transactions, Debusia presents $3.8 billion in the sound deposits to numbered accounts in various locations. When the funding operation is complete, there is $4 billion in CIA accounts to be utilized for covert and black operations; there is $3.8 billion in private numbered accounts controlled by George Bush and William Casey. Pablo Escobar, the primary depositor is dead to ensure no one will withdraw the super bills. General Noriega is in U.S. federal prison and under constant U.S. guard to ensure his silence, and William Casey is dead, leaving $3.8 billion in good U.S. currency in the control of George Bush.
Yawn. You know the extreme liberal left is desparate for any type of attention they can get when they are reduced to 1) Hoping WMD are never found in Iraq 2) Hoping the US gets 'bogged down' and mass casualties are inflicted 3) Hoping the war on terror fails 4) Hoping the stock market goes down and the economy gets worse As Bush continues to enjoy strong popularity, the Democrats truly are becoming desparate. Are these the best arguments that the Democrats can muster? Sigh. Sorry lunatic fringe liberals, but the party in power has more important things to worry about right now, not your petty griping.
Trader sometimes you are so full of.....stereotypes! 1) Hoping WMD are never found in Iraq Name one "lib on this board who has ever said anything about not wanting to find weapons of Deception. 2) Hoping the US gets 'bogged down' and mass casualties are inflicted I've got family and friends I want home NOW!!! The best way to support your people is to see that they never have to enter (this type of) conflict! Hoping they come home in one piece and not in a body bag! 3) Hoping the war on terror fails No! Wishing we were truly confronting the "right" war on terror 4) Hoping the stock market goes down and the economy gets worse I work on wall street, (and since 911 sweated through three rounds of layoffs) the last thing I want to do is loss my job, like my wife did in October. And still can't find a job.
1. So what? you mean to tell me that hoping for a widespread proliferation of WMD's is what I should be doing? That's brilliant. 2. Yeah, I am definitely hoping that. Sit on the flagpole you are waving and think about that some. 3. living in New York city, that is exactly what I"m hoping for, a big nuclear failure in the war on terror. 4. I love this newfound strategy of yours of tying gains in the stock markets to invisible hand validation of political actions. I wonder what that means for rubinomics and balanced budgets? But you''re right, once again, living in New York, I hope the equity markets crash and burn. Forecasting something doesn't mean that you are hoping that it will happen. Do you think the people in the CBO are hoping to see an alltime record high deficit this year because they predicted it?
Typical meltdown from Jorgie Porgie. Never a thoughtful argument. Always the same old tired bumper sticker crap, follwed by frustrated foot stamping when he doesn't know how to answer right kinds of questions. There should be a cutoff of some kind. You should be required to define the word 'debate' before they let you in the debate forum. You should have to think for yourself or something. Oh, well. No matter. It was a good little run. Hope you enjoyed your lil victory parade (which never happened) Jorgie, cause it's over. Keep trying to drape the same 'anti-American' **** on us. Keep on trying. "Don't... stop... thinkin bout yesterday" as they say... 2004's gonna be a gas.
GOP Snubs Democratic Call for Iraq Probe http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20030611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_20 (AP) - Majority Republicans in Congress brushed aside Democratic pleas for a formal investigation into the handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs, saying Wednesday that routine oversight should suffice. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said some of the Democratic criticism of the handling of the intelligence has "been simply politics and for political gain." "I will not allow the committee to be politicized or to be used as an unwitting tool for any political strategist," the Kansas Republican said. Nothing here to see...move along....
GOP Snubs Democratic Call for Iraq Probe This is a bogus news article title. Congress will investigate it in their normal manner, just not "formally".
