Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bush caught on tape LYING about wiretaps...


Joe Sick

Recommended Posts

Well, people have been looking for definite evidence that Bush lies to your faces, day after day. Here is one example...

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

And the video link...

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/bushwiretaps.320.240.mov.htm

:doh: :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you read beyond the bold, you see he's talking about the patriot act specifically.

Dang it ,you ruined the suprise :D

added:

Pokerpacker ...not to be condescending,but that was quick for a 16yr old :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, we only have 7 open anti-Bush threads on Page 1 of the Tailgate?

I swear some of you are just frigging obsessed.

:laugh: you should feel lucky there are only 7 threads.

It's not just the Tailgate denizens, it's the entire liberal wing of the internet ... this is just like the conservative wing of the internet after Dan Rather broke that story about Bush and the National Guard.

...there are a lot of obsessed people out there smelling blood in the water...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, we only have 7 open anti-Bush threads on Page 1 of the Tailgate?

I swear some of you are just frigging obsessed.

Just move all of them into the "Bush is the AntiChrist" (Armageddon Merge) Thread

And you can put the "Liberals are flower sniffing wussies (Clinton Juicy Cigar Mega Merge) in another Thread......

Hey, its an idea........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love it... they (The Left) keep grasping at straws... anything to continue their "Bush is Bad" mantra and fleece Americans while ignoring their obvious lack of any solutions or ideas as to how THEY could run the country more effectively. Hummm...Iraq war improving...economy humming.... unemployment at record lows.... what on earth can the Dems do to draw attention to themselves. Aaaahh... the ole tried and true attack of Bush..... "Bush lied...people died" Cindy SHeehan war cry... devoid of any evidence or reason. :doh:

I agree with the poster above... just sit back and watch the Dems implode. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love it... they (The Left) keep grasping at straws... anything to continue their "Bush is Bad" mantra and fleece Americans while ignoring their obvious lack of any solutions or ideas as to how THEY could run the country more effectively. Hummm...Iraq war improving...economy humming.... unemployment at record lows.... what on earth can the Dems do to draw attention to themselves. Aaaahh... the ole tried and true attack of Bush..... "Bush lied...people died" Cindy SHeehan war cry... devoid of any evidence or reason. :doh:

I agree with the poster above... just sit back and watch the Dems implode. :laugh:

ok,first of all,i am neither republican nor democrat.i am a free thinker who makes decisions based on what i think makes sense and not what any political party deems for me.that said,i too am unhappy with Jr. and the things he's done since he "took" office(and i use the word took loosely) and personally would rather see our politcal system graduate from the current heads or tails mentality.the iraq war is improving?how?economy humming?last i heard is has slowed to coincide with the raising of interest rates that are still absurdly low historically speaking.and the unemployment issue.unemployment statistics are taken from state employment departments and only reflect the people who are actually collecting the insurance from being unemployed.it doesn't reflect if the drop in unemployment rates is actually due to the fact that less people are unemployed or if just less people are "properly unemployed" so as to be able to collect and become a statistic.Bush is neither good or bad.he is the idiot poster child for a corrupt machine we call american politics feeding the people what he thinks they want to hear.sadly,we're headed in the same direction(and thus likely the same fate)as the last "greatest empire in the history of man",that being Rome.:rant:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love it... they (The Left) keep grasping at straws... anything to continue their "Bush is Bad" mantra and fleece Americans while ignoring their obvious lack of any solutions or ideas as to how THEY could run the country more effectively. Hummm...Iraq war improving...economy humming.... unemployment at record lows.... what on earth can the Dems do to draw attention to themselves. Aaaahh... the ole tried and true attack of Bush..... "Bush lied...people died" Cindy SHeehan war cry... devoid of any evidence or reason. :doh:

I agree with the poster above... just sit back and watch the Dems implode. :laugh:

You really want the party that isn't in power to talk about what they could do better if they were running the country on a non-election year?

lol OK.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I find most disturbing? It's not that the legality of the wiretaps is questioned. It's the singleminded obsession with trying to use the issue to attack Bush without ONCE considering that these wiretaps may be saving American lives. I mean come on people, don't you think that this should enter into the equation in some fashion?

Is it wrong for the president to use a loophole if he can, to prevent a terrorist attack? Is it right to assume Bush is using these wiretaps to spy on journalists or dems without a shred of evidence to suggest this is the case? I think these are moral issues that need to be addressed before we can have a reasonable debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I find most disturbing? It's not that the legality of the wiretaps is questioned. It's the singleminded obsession with trying to use the issue to attack Bush without ONCE considering that these wiretaps may be saving American lives. I mean come on people, don't you think that this should enter into the equation in some fashion?

Is it wrong for the president to use a loophole if he can, to prevent a terrorist attack? Is it right to assume Bush is using these wiretaps to spy on journalists or dems without a shred of evidence to suggest this is the case? I think these are moral issues that need to be addressed before we can have a reasonable debate.

The problem is that non-Bush supporters see this as a pattern. The secret prisons, the "enemy combatant" tag, the it's ok to torture memo, the patriot act......all of this is viewed as a pattern. You think it saves lives while those that oppose it believe that movement away from checks and balances puts the nation at risk. You refuse to look at it that way, and they refuse to look at it your way. That's why you vote for different leaders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I find most disturbing? It's not that the legality of the wiretaps is questioned. It's the singleminded obsession with trying to use the issue to attack Bush without ONCE considering that these wiretaps may be saving American lives. I mean come on people, don't you think that this should enter into the equation in some fashion?

Is it wrong for the president to use a loophole if he can, to prevent a terrorist attack? Is it right to assume Bush is using these wiretaps to spy on journalists or dems without a shred of evidence to suggest this is the case? I think these are moral issues that need to be addressed before we can have a reasonable debate.

Now that I've established the legality of Bush's Executive Orders (see other related threads), I will once again pose the following question to those on the radical left with the courage to muster a response. NoCAL, - you had your chance and chose to dodge the question.

If an NSA intercept saves American lives from an impending terrorist attack, would you accept it's legitimacy, neccessity, and fully support the action? A simple yes or no is all that's required, and that will be accepted as a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that non-Bush supporters see this as a pattern. The secret prisons, the "enemy combatant" tag, the it's ok to torture memo, the patriot act......all of this is viewed as a pattern. You think it saves lives while those that oppose it believe that movement away from checks and balances puts the nation at risk. You refuse to look at it that way, and they refuse to look at it your way. That's why you vote for different leaders.

Really? So when Would you say Saddam's support for terrorism and enemey of the US showed a pattern?

* Ramzi Yousef, architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, arrived in America on an Iraqi passport before fleeing after the attack on Pakistani papers. Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb, fled to Baghdad after the attack and lived there for years afterward. New evidence shows that Saddam's regime provided money and housing to Yasin.

* Abu Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the ocean liner Achille Lauro during which American retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad April 2003.

* Abu Nidal whose real name was Sabri al-Banna broke with the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974, saying the organization and Yasser Arafat were too moderate. Once branded the world's most dangerous terrorist by the State Department, his organization received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria. He lived in Baghdad between 1999 and his mysterious shooting death in August 2002.

* After running an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi received medical care in Baghdad once the Taliban fell. He opened an Ansar al-Islam camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Zarqawi is at large. It is also worth noting that the 9/11 commission concluded Ansar al-Islam was formed with help from bin Laden. The commission concluded on page 60 of its bipartisan report “There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” Others have concluded that Zarqawi may have been in competition with bin Laden. Israeli intelligence no longer uses the term “Al-Qaeda” referring instead to what they call “World Jihad”, according to a senior Israeli intelligence source “Al-Zarqawi embodies the complexity of this matrix,”

* Saddam Hussein proudly paid money to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers and in 2002 raised the amount paid from $10,000 to $25,000. Within one month 12 suicide bombers successfully struck inside Israel. By funding and encouraging the suicide bombers Saddam acted as a roadblock to peace between Palestine and Israel contributed to the overall instability of the Middle East. This went on while sanctions were in place and was funded in part by the failed U.N. Oil for Food Program.

* In April 1993 Iraq plotted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush. Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

What about his contacts with al Qaeda? Does that show a pattern? Considering Saddam's past support for terrorism, would you consider this a disturbing pattern? Inquiring minds want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I've established the legality of Bush's Executive Orders (see other related threads), I will once again pose the following question to those on the radical left with the courage to muster a response. NoCAL, - you had your chance and chose to dodge the question.

If an NSA intercept saves American lives from an impending terrorist attack, would you accept it's legitimacy, neccessity, and fully support the action? A simple yes or no is all that's required, and that will be accepted as a response.

Yes, and so would any court in the U.S. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? So when Would you say Saddam's support for terrorism and enemey of the US showed a pattern?

What about his contacts with al Qaeda? Does that show a pattern? Considering Saddam's past support for terrorism, would you consider this a disturbing pattern? Inquiring minds want to know.

Would I say Saddam showed a pattern of supporting terrorism? Of course. Then again it would be easier to name the Arab states that haven't then those that have. Also there is a question as to which terrorists Saddam was really supporting. He seemed to have a hard on for those bombing Israel, while Al Qaeda openly dislike him. The guy was a dictator though and no matter which of the murderous groups he supported he was still a man deserving of strong shot of justice.

However I have to ask, what does this have to do with what I wrote. You asked a question and I put out the frame of mind your opposition is coming from. Agreeing with the idea that Saddam supported terror doesn't change the fact that many believe that a move away from checks and balances is not good for America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...