Questions about Bush's warmongering

By Tonie61

"Big bro 43, 1st non-elected resident of the white house, are you a serial liar, or are you the “leader of the free world who doesn’t do nuances”, or a puppet dangling at the whims of your PNAC masters?

In the presidential debates, whoever the Democrat is--let’s say Kerry; should use some of these as talking points regarding Bush’s warmongering. As he makes each question, he should have a small placard behind him summarizing the point. He has to do the Columbo thing of asking open-ended questions, luring him in, and then snaring him into the trap. As Bush speaks he must use the same poster saying, “Typical, insider, political double-speak” as none of Bush’s answers matter.

Question 1: Regarding your 2000 platform, how have you kept your word in keeping the US from peacekeeping missions?

Question 2: Regarding Afghanistan, do you remember making the injudicious remark about the “Crusade” against terrorism?

Question 3: With the previously mentioned just plainly stupid remark, as well as bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq, your have incited US hatred in Islamic countries! Was that your intention?

Question 4: Regarding bin laden, do you remember making the imprudent comment about bringing him back “dead or alive”?

Question 4 additional comments: We have all heard about how Pakistan’s ISI would never capture bin laden. Why then did the Bush team cooperate with them? The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in “the post September 11 consultations” with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, Pakistan’s chief spy, to directly “cooperate” with Pakistan’s military intelligence, its ISI, despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan. It is believed an agreement was reached between ISI and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden’s flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001. So, we weren’t actually going to get him “dead or alive”, but your team never told us.

Question 5: Did oil have anything to do with the attack of Afghanistan?

Question 5 additional comments: The Bush administration just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil—an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. Part of the Bush administration’s bargaining tactics involved threats of war. Clinton wouldn’t allow the Unocal pipeline project to proceed because his administration forbade any American companies from doing business with the Taliban, the protectors of bin Laden in Afghanistan. You have no such scruples and it is running smoothly now that you have your man Hamid Kharzai, in charge of the post-Taliban Afghan interim government. Not coincidentally, in addition to being the head of Afghanistan, Kharzai also had acted as a consultant for Unocal.

Question 6: Also, about bin laden, what about your pledge that if we didn’t get him, we would fail in that Afghanistan segment of the “everlasting war against terrorism”?

Question 7: Has the US lost credibility due to your lies regarding Hussein’s “WMD” and Iraq being an imminent threat to the US?

Question 8: Remember your pledge of being a ”uniter not a divider”?

Question 8 additional comments: You haven’t done that with the international community. Your isolationist approach toward the world proved to be lucky. If that had the US ratified the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court (ICC), the US would have been sued by Greek lawyers as part of an August 4th lawsuit filed with ICC against senior UK officials for allegedly breaching international law by attacking Iraq. The Greek lawyers say they have compiled a dossier against the officials, including more than 20 alleged war crimes.

Question 9: Have you used “sources and methods” consistently?

Question 9 additional comments: Prior to the US Congressional vote to authorize the Iraq war, you concealed information from Congress using the phrase “sources and methods”, ad nauseum. That was a lie as “sources and methods” certainly could be exposed when it served your purpose. Senior Bush officials blew the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and by doing so broke the law. That was shocking because you led us to believe you were the man who would “return honor and dignity to the White House”. How could you ever be petty and retaliate against anyone?

You destroyed Joseph Wilson’s wife, a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction. This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.

Question 10: Do you regard Tony Blair as a friend and similar thinker?

Question 10 additional comments: Blair has become only the second British Prime Minister ever to appear in public before a judicial inquiry. The British press says more than two-thirds of the UK electorate believes they were duped by Blair’s government about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Blair said in the inquiry that he would have resigned had there been any truth to a BBC report that his government had embellished an intelligence dossier on Iraq with dubious information. You admitted being responsible for his “16 words”! If you matched the ethical standard of Blair then you would resign!

By the way, “16 words” fiasco also shows how you can’t even honor that ”uniter not a divider” pledge even within your closest advisors, because you let three of them take jump on the sword for you before you decided to “return honor and dignity to the White House”.

Question 11: Which, if any of the accepted US intelligence agencies, do you use when you make judgments because the CIA, as well as the State Department said that making Iraq into a democracy was never going to happen?

Question 12: Do you regret that Commander-in-chief photo-op in which you declared all major military operations in Iraq over?

Question 13: Do you regret that, “bring em on” comment?

Question 14: Did oil have anything to do with the attack of Iraq?

Question 14 additional comments: The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure US corporate control over Iraqi resources at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the UN under US pressure is the Development Fund for Iraq which is being controlled by the US and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The second is a recent Bush executive order, 13303, that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil.

Question 15: How have you returned “honor and dignity to the White House”?

Question 15 additional comments: The saga of the “16 words”, which was just the tip of the iceberg in regards to lies in the propaganda buildup for the Iraqi war, the cover-up of Saudi information in the Congressional 9-11 Report, the illegal, despicable act of retribution against Joseph Wilson, and the notorious Presidential Daily Briefing which stated “bin Laden had wanted to conduct attacks in the United States for years and that (his) group apparently maintained a support base here”, all of will soon be investigated by congressional hearings and independent commissions.

Question 16: You are now emulating the Democratic Party’s Iraq stance of a year before the war started. Does that mean the Democrats are better than you at national security?

Question 16 additional comments: At the beginning of the Iraq escapade the Democrats begged you to get an international coalition, even though you persecuted us, particularly Max Cleland, during the 2002 election for our principled disagreement with you. Now you are begging the UN to help you. Rumsfeld criticized half of the UN Security Council as being “Old Europe” and you accused them of being a failed institution.

Kerry’s summation: These wars have nothing to do with your 2000 platform. These wars do correspond to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) boys--all of your warmongering advisors plans, though. It has been well chronicled how before 9-11 that they wanted to attack Iraq, and how when the tragedy occurred, they referred to it as an opportunity. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, the PNAC boys said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor”. The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the “new Pearl Harbor”, described as “the opportunity of ages” by these ghouls. They had no remorse for our nation’s tragedy; their only concern was to gain from it. Since, most of them were oilmen they added that twist to typical GOP warmongering.

Dubya, my old Yale, and “Skull and Bones” mate, are you a serial liar, or are you the “leader of the free world who doesn’t do nuances”, or a puppet dangling at the whims of your PNAC masters?

As he ends Kerry should raise a placard showing, “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE”, “PROTECTING SOURCES AND METHODS”, “STONEWALLING” and “CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS”!

b. connors"

<  9/11 Skeptics Symposium Berlin: 7 Questions | How We Lost The Vote - How To Get It Back  >