BUSH ADMINISTRATION CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH - Video Games Forum

hypedave · #1 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

BUSH ADMINISTRATION CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
We've all heard the cracks about the so-called Bush Dynasty, but it genuinely appears that the current president is really taking them to heart. Bush and his associates are behaving like irrational medieval tyrants. Keep the truth silent or it's off with your head.

Richard Clarke, former anti-terror chief who worked in every administration since Reagan, charged that that the administration virtually ignored al Qaeda before 9/11, and used the terrorist attacks to immediately begin planning the Iraq invasion. It seems preparedness requires more than draping the president in the flag and settling old scores in Iraq. Vice President Cheney quickly charged that Clarke "wasn't in the loop." Condoleezza Rice apparently couldn't decide whether Clarke was in the loop or not, so she claimed that Clarke never attempted to raise his concerns with the president and that the Bush administration adopted Clarke's ideas. The White House has been unable to refute Clarke’s charges on a substantive level, so they've resorted to a favorite tactic: shameless character assassination.

Meanwhile, Richard Foster, current Medicare actuary, discovered that the price tag for Bush's Medicare revisions would be between $500-$600 billion – much higher than the $400 billion estimate the White House used when selling the idea to Congress. However, Foster's numbers were never revealed to Congress before the vote because Medicare administrator Thomas Scully threatened to fire him if he released his data.

Of course, we've seen this pattern before. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson spoke out against the yellowcake claim, the Bush administration revealed the identity of his wife as an undercover CIA operative. When Anthony Zinni and Lawrence Lindsey (correctly) predicted the Iraq War would cost more than the administration wanted to admit, they were fired.

President Bush has all the riches of a medieval ruler as well, with fully stocked campaign coffers on hand to help spread his version of the "truth."

What are your opinions of this.

Grisu · #2 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 04:06 PM

What's the source?

hypedave · #3 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 04:18 PM

http://www.recallbush.org/

SwamP_ThinG · #4 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:01 PM

Be carefull. Don´t speak too loud against Bushit around here, or it´s "off with your head"!!!

PS:How about someone give me the date when Condy Rice is expected to testify before the 9/11 comission? Surely CNN will cover it just like Clarke and Tenet´s testimony, and it will be fun to watch them squirm and conduct damage control...
So, when is it due?

hypedave · #5 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:55 PM

man im waiting on Ms Condy to speak out, better yet i'm willing to bet she will not be allowed to write a book in the future. She knows some serious damage to the BUSH administration and they are trying to hide it.

oh yeah notice how after she speaks, the 9/11 panel cant ask anyone else to speak, interesting aint it? drill her ass.

SwamP_ThinG · #6 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 07:16 PM

If i could choose one White House official to speak to the comission, i wouldn´t choose Condy Rice. She´s an old fox, and she can talk her way out of many awkward situations. But Donald "duck" Rummsfeld isn´t that savy, and i think the comission could "trick" him into reveiling more than he should.
Dick Cheney is also a good choice, but there´s one problem that applies to all of them:
Although they are under oath, there is no way for us to know if they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The more juicy stuff will never get reveiled, simply because they are covering their own asses and they will never say anything that could get them in trouble. I believe we will be hearing Rice resorting to the 5th ammendment quite a lot indeed...
By the way, that 5th ammendment seems to produce more harm than good. It should be revogued. It´s a too big a shield for someone to hide behind.
Anyway... :drool:

Hey, what about that date? When´s Condy Rice´s appearence? Will someone please post it? I don´t want to miss it. Miss Rice is gonna dance!!!

fatboy · #7 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 11:14 PM

yankeefan1970 · #8 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hypedave

http://www.recallbush.org/

Is there possibly an unbiased source for the claims made in the original posting?

You can't possibly believe anything 100% that is put out by a site called "recallbush". Likewise, I would not suggest that anyone believe 100% in anything put out by "electbush.com" (or any other super-pro bush site).

There is always an agenda in anything that's put out by someone who is either for or against a candidate. So, I would suggest that any time you come across something that sounds like the stories you've heard on recallbush.com, you validate them with atleast 2 unbiased sources.

To do anything less is to cheat yourself. Don't stick with the agenda that they want to hand you! Validate it!!! Chances are, you'll find that it's only a half truth at best. In many cases, you may find out that you're being handed an outright lie. Dressed up very nicely and quoting "unnamed sources" so it sounds official.

muspell · #9 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 07:22 AM

I would recommend washingtonpost.com . They have had and still have a commendable coverage of what happens, only without the utterly apparent spin. There are a full transcript of Rice's interview with 60 minutes, and Bush reversing his statement about allowing the hearing, and so on collected in the margin on every related article. Heck if I know what this means, though. Seems to me that Bushco is trying to spin this, if one could call it that, so it would appear that they are against all possible reason and Constitusional practice allowing Rice to testify to the commission. What is even stranger, is that the commission is not allowed to question Rice about anything else than the terror- campaign. To wit, not about the Iraqi war, as per the head of the commission's instructions. "So, did Washington focus on war against Iraq instead of the terror- cells, like Clarke claims? - Sorry, not allowed to answer that." Invective, invective, I say.

Startup · #10 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muspell

Seems to me that Bushco is trying to spin this,

Bush spinning something? Never! That almost implies that he would say something that is not true and we know that would never happen....