Printable View
This is so true....they throw all this conspiracy stuff out there to confuse people. George H.W. Bush sold weapons to Iran...even though all trade was off because they were holding Americans hostage. I don't know how they are able to just sweep Iran contra under the rug!Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinal
We sold weapons to Saddam too and we sold them in central and south America. Its all about arms deals.
Great Spirit you need to take 10 breaths dude...you just said you hope there is another terrorist attack just so you get to say I told you so....that's pretty sad.
SO here are a couple to websites I just know you will love....you can chill.....do you ever read 10 zen monkeys? They just did a great job with American fascism....you have to read this...
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/...-fascisoum-yet
And this is good from bushflash if you guys haven't seen it yet...its a pretty good example of how I feel about the whole Saddam affair....
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
No, he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
It wasn't, it the #1 story for 6 months, hearings on TV and Bush 41 wasn't PresidentQuote:
I don't know how they are able to just sweep Iran contra under the rug!
Yes he did and unless you can prove other wise PLEASE SHUT UP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozarks
Why the hell do you think little Bush has worked so hard to keep those records sealed from the American public?
Tell me WHY is he doing this? Right now any info on Iran could help us but are the records being leased? NO!!!
I suggest you read more on the Iran contra. There have been numerous leaks suggesting not only did bush sr. make deals with Iran he did it behind Carters back which amounts to treason that is why little bush is hiding the records. It is no secret that Bush Sr. arranged to trade weapons for the release of the hostages. He even asked them to WAIT on releasing the captured Americans until Reagan was sworn in so that it would look better for he and Reagan. WOW that is really looking out for his fellow Americans!
[align=left]December 30-31, 2006 -- SPECIAL REPORT. The Bush Family may believe that with the execution of Saddam Hussein their involvement in illegal dealings with the Iranian Revolutionary Government in the wake of the downfall of the Shah will be secretly buried along with Saddam, the former CIA asset and U.S. agent of influence in the Iraq-Iran War.
Although much has been written about George H. W. Bush's and former CIA director William Casey's pre-1980 U.S. presidential election maneuverings with the government of Ayatollah Khomeini to keep U.S. embassy personnel in Tehran as hostages until after the election (thus preventing an "October Surprise" of a hostage release that would benefit President Jimmy Carter), little has been written about the mysterious disappearance of a U.S.-flagged cargo ship that, according to our intelligence sources, was on a secret and unofficial trip to Iran and possibly carrying a weapons shipment agreed to between Bush and Casey and Iranian representatives in Paris in October 1980. According to classified Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) cables between the DEA in Washington and Scotland Yard in London, the ship, the SS Poet, may have been involved in a hijacking and the subsequent swapping U.S. cargo for Iranian heroin but that may have been a crafty cover story to throw off investigators.
In early 1981, the Camden (NJ) Courier-Post obtained copies of the DEA cables and a statement from a high-level source stating that the Poet's crew was taken hostage by Iran and that the hijacking of the ship was carried out by members of the Gambino crime family in New York. The disappearance of the Poet came at the same time 52 U.S. embassy hostages were being held in Iran. During the 1980 election campaign, George H. W. Bush and Reagan campaign manager Bill Casey reportedly traveled to Paris to meet with representatives of the Khomeini regime and offered them weapons if they agreed to hold the U.S. hostages until after the November election. The Iranians agreed to do so and the hostages were released on January 20, 1981, as Reagan was being inaugurated. At about the same time, the DEA cables showing a link between the Poet's disappearance and an illegal U.S.-Iran transactions involving the mob were released to the Courier Post.[/align]
then there is the weapons he sold to Saddam....
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
But I am not suprised I mean Bush's grandfather was actually CHARGED by the US government with treason for selling arms to Hitler...it seems the fruit does not fall far from the tree...
President George Walker Bushâ??s grandfather (Prescott Bush) and great grandfather (George Herbert Walker) were among Wall Streetâ??s ultra-right wing elite. Before WWII, they were among the key players who coordinated the flow of investments from American multimillionaires into Germany. They profited by helping to coordinate the American financing behind Hitlerâ??s rise to power. During the war, they even profited from companies that armed the Nazi war machine and used slave labour at Auschwitz. Then, after the war, Prescott Bush was instrumental in helping to launder Nazi loot for Fritz Thyssen, who was one Hitlerâ??s earliest and richest industrialist backers.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html
SO PLEASE OZARK if you want to say I am wrong that is fine but you need to back up what you are saying... simply saying its not true won't cut it. Read the facts then state your opinion WITH LINKS. Otherwise your opinion isn't worth shit.
Thanks
Cat
Bush is blocking the scheduled release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which mandates that all but the most highly sensitive documents are to be made public twelve years after a President leaves office. Under the PRA, Ronald Reagan's papers were supposed to be released last year.
On January 20, 2001, the first batch (68,000 pages) of Reagan's papers, mostly notes from meetings with advisers and internal White House memos, came up for routine release. It should have come off without a hitch--after all, presidential libraries have for years been releasing documents informally. But the new Bush Administration, fresh from its own Florida election controversy, took advantage of a PRA clause allowing a thirty-day presidential consultation, and thus began what turned into a grand stall. By last August, half a year had passed and still nothing had been released.
This raised suspicions. Since the law already exempted the most sensitive documents from disclosure, why did the Bush Administration have to review the rest for what it said were national security purposes? "It's pretty fishy," says Anna Nelson, an American University history professor who works with a number of scholarly and historical organizations on presidential papers access. "The precautions on 'national security' are extreme. These are not Iran/contra papers."
Nelson surmises that many officials in the current Administration (including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) were authors of the twelve-year-old memos that are now being blocked: "They probably don't remember what they said, and they are feeling iffy about it." Meanwhile, George W. Bush is now deciding which papers of his father's, former President George H.W. Bush, will be released, beginning on January 20, 2005.
After September 11 the Administration had virtual carte blanche to stall any and all document releases, and it did so boldly [see Bruce Shapiro, "Information Lockdown," November 12, 2001]. In November Bush issued an executive order that declared that not only could a former President assert executive privilege over his papers against the will of the incumbent President (a measure Reagan instituted just before he left office) but that a sitting President could also block the papers of a predecessor, even if that predecessor had approved their release.
The implications of this change are breathtaking. "The bottom line is that secrecy prevails in every situation when at least one party wants it," says Mark Rozell, a political science professor at the Catholic University of America and a leading scholar on executive privilege.
The Bush Administration, in full Orwellian swing, has dubbed its executive order "Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act," as if it were designed to enhance public access. According to White House spokesperson Anne Womack, "This really didn't change anything." The order, she says, is "just about procedure. It doesn't talk about when, how or why." At the time the order was signed, press secretary Ari Fleischer said it would mandate a "more orderly process.... As a result of the new law that is now going into effect, and thanks to the executive order that the President will soon issue, more information will be forthcoming."
http://www.russbaker.com/The%20Natio...y%20hiding.htm
Amazing how these arm chair soldiers support WAR no matter what the military is saying. I think all supporters of this war need to get their cowardly asses over there and fight it themselves!
The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Mil itary Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland, was not sur prised by the changing attitude within the military.
“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.
He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the in telligence that led to the war was wrong.”
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
I'll be damned.....we agree again. Our current job is to make sure the current government remains stable and to train their troops for the mission. More people on the ground isn't going to be the answer....they have to do it through their military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Martinez
35% approve.....42% disapprove....23%??? Sorry, that 7 point differential don't mean shit. ANY election projection would NEVER make a conclusion with a 23% undecided vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
Keep living the fantasy Psycho if it makes you feel better.
NEVER EVER in history has the military posted a poll like this that means something also look at who is speaking out!
The poll also asked senior military leadership....
Give it up Psycho you are wrong on this one. Its ok to be wrong you know a lot of Americans bought into this war and have admitted their mistake. Its a bigger man that admits hes wrong :)
I would....if we were.....but we weren't.......so I'm not.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
I am, he is, you are, he is, you are me and we are all together..........that just popped in my head...sorry!
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
I am, he is, you are, he is, you are me and we are all together..........
HAHAHAHA you are sounding more and more like dummy rummy everyday :D