Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Sunday, February 12, 2006

    Bush leaves a trail of corruption, criminality, lies and incompetence in his wake

    Reposted from September 2005: The US Presidential election in 2000 took place on the 7th November. The 2 main challengers were, of course George W Bush, and Al Gore.During the campaign, Bush stated "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." Rather interesting when you consider what followed.There were various legal battles which followed the election, however, Gore, despite having the popular vote behind him conceded victory to Bush because of a US Supreme Court ruling. A Washington Post analysis found that Democrats were the hardest hit by "overvotes", and the BBC's Newsnight uncovered some very dodgy goings on in Florida, under Bush's brother, Jeb.So, despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, and that Database Technologies had wiped thousands of people's names off the Florida voters registers in a rather criminal manner, Bush grabbed the White House, and the Democrats sat back, for the sake of "national unity". Perhaps you'd call it subserviance.On the 11th September 2001, a terrible attack took place, whereby 4 US commercial airliners were hijacked, 2 crashed into the World Trade Centre towers in New York, 1 into the Pentagon, and the other in Pennsylvania.On that same day Ari Fleisher, then White House press secretary gave this briefing:

    Q Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?

    MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings.

    Q Does the President ? is he concerned about the fact that this attack of this severity happened with no warning?

    MR. FLEISCHER: First things first: his concern is with the safety of people who have lost their ? the health and security of the American people and with the families of those who have lost their lives. There will come an appropriate time to do all appropriate look backs. His focus is on events this morning.

    No warnings? Liar. How about you Condoleeza, you were a National Security Adviser at the time, you've since been promoted to US secretary of State, did you say there were no warnings as well? "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile - a hijacked airplane as a missile." Those were the words of now US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, on the 16th May 2002. And what of Bush himself, did he acknowledge warnings received? No, he didn't either. Bush made the following claim on the 13th April 2004:
    I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
    Sorry Condoleeza, and George, the facts don't support your deceptions. That's the thing with liars, because they always have to cover up one lie with another they eventually get discovered. Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes (The Guardian - 19th May 2002) Of course there are plenty of other questions about the 11th September 2001 which remain unanswered concerning criminal negligence, blatent lying and incompetence. You can find a complete timeline which addresses all these issues by clicking here. Ok, where should we look next? How about a spot of corruption? There's plenty of that to go round.Let's start at Enron. You may have heard of the scandal there, and Kenneth Lay, a good friend of Bush is still walking free today. The Guardian had this comment to make in a 14th July 2002 piece, titled "That's pretty rich, Bush": In his weekly radio address, Bush repeated his demand that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, the Islamic militant leader U.S. officials blame for the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York. The United States has been massing forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to comply. It is important to remember here, the implication is that if the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden, they would have avoided military action. But that's certainly not the implication of the Bush regime's later statements. Later that day, the US launched its invasion of Afghanistan. On the 11th October 2002, Bush declared there was a "new era of hope in Afghanistan", however, his speech didn't seem to be in keeping with his claim in 2000 that he wasn't interested in nation building.The Daily Time, Pakistan wondered about this new era of hope, and the Bush regime's blossoming friendships with Afghan warlords, who were, by all accounts, butchers: One Herat resident quoted in the report said, “Ismail Khan and his followers — their hands are bloody. For them, killing a bird is the same as killing a man.” Yet when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited with Ismail Khan last spring, he called the warlord “an appealing person .... He’s thoughtful, measured and self-confident.” The “new era of hope” that Bush pronounced for Afghanistan has not yet come to pass for many there, partly as a result of US decisions. That should be kept in mind, as administration officials and others tout war in Iraq, especially if such a war is to be waged not just to disarm Saddam but to “liberate” the people of Iraq.So, by the time the US had claimed that it had "liberated Afghanistan" (although American troops remain in the country) America was pushing for an attack on Iraq.There were huge demonstrations all over the world against an act of aggression against Iraq, however, the Bush regime weren't interested, they wanted their war, and they were going to get it.In January 2003, Bush gave this State of the Union address, part of which read:
    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
    Clearly, this was not the case, as this article, from the Sunday Herald reported in July 2003. The IAEA knew almost immediately that the documents relating to these claims were forgeries BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, however, the rogue regime in Washington never bothered to correct their claims, instead, they decided to out a CIA official. There is a good piece looking at Valerie Plame at Wikipedia. The outing of an active CIA official is a criminal offence.When the mob in Washington were so willing to engage in criminal actions in order to advance their own agenda, and smear anyone who got in their way, there was no doubt in many people's minds that they would launch their illegal act of aggression against Iraq, despite legal niceties. Kofi Annan, the UN head said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a deputy legal adviser at the British Foreign Office stated unequivocally that an attack on Iraq without an explicit mandate via a second UN resolution would be illegal. She later resigned. The legal chambers which Blair's wife works for even believes that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.However, the invasion went ahead anyway. Now, torture and abuse. Yes, there is no area of criminality which the regime in Washington appear to have overlooked. On the 25th June this year, it was reported that the US finally admitted that it tortures its captives, following many reports of torture and abuse at American run "detainee facilities" in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. On the 29th January I posted this, taking a look at how the "good guys" behave.On the 4th February this year, despite Gonzales's role in torture and abuse carried out by US citizens, the US senate officially endorsed Alberto Gonzales, and he thereafter became the US Torturer General.Blimey, if I hadn't already read all of this, and I was a moronic flag waving Bush supporter, it would be pretty difficult for me to continue to support them, however, obviously some sheeple do continue with their support. Now, the 2004 US presidential election, quite obviously filled with vote fraud, as we at "A Logical Voice" have reported:Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones New revelations on vote fraud in the US "Need I remind you of how their elections were held in the United States?" We have reported here recently at "A Logical Voice" about the Bush regime's criminal negligence, and incompetence regarding cutting funding for the New Orleans levee system, and pumping stations last year, about how they refused aid from both overseas, and fellow Americans for victims of hurricane Katrina, how the "feds" took so long to respond to the disaster and so on. Just click here for the latest page of news and views to see just a few of those posts.


    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home