Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now

  1. Apr 18, 2004 #1
    I really don't know how to express my shock and anger over this:
    Bush shared top secret information with a known terrorist supporter who in turn promised to manipulate the oil market for Bush's reelection!
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    I'm sorry, I've been busy and haven't kept up with this.
    Woodward knows this how?
  4. Apr 18, 2004 #3
    " Legendary journalist Bob Woodward calls his new book, ?Plan of Attack,? the first detailed, behind-the-scenes account of how and why the president decided to wage war in Iraq.

    It?s an insider?s account written after Woodward spoke with 75 of the key decision makers, including President Bush himself.

    The president permitted Woodward to quote him directly. Others spoke on the condition that Woodward not identify them as sources. "

    So, unless you think Woodward is lying (why the hell would he lie about this?)....
  5. Apr 18, 2004 #4
    No Surprise

    Saudi Arabia is the leading Terrorist nation (because the USA and Israel). In fact, it is the USA's No. 1 terrorist threat (refer to how many Sep 11 kamikazes came from Saudi Arabia).
    Not to worry, though, a nice little cosy deal over oil usually "wipes the slate clean", and keeps Human Rights Violations out of the news...
  6. Apr 18, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    I don't know why he would lie, nor do I know he would not lie....should I really accept it without questioning it?
    Who were the other sources? did he get the account you mentioned above from the Pres.? or?
  7. Apr 18, 2004 #6
    I don't know. Most likely he got this information from sources that asked not to be mentioned by name. Woodward is a good, respected journalist and I doubt (to the pointing of rejecting) the idea that he is putting his entire career on the line on less than solid evidence. There needs to be an independent investigation into these claims.
  8. Apr 18, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    hmmmm, aaaah, oooooh

    Well, independent investigation and "Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now " are quite different.

    Anyway, I found the real story. I understand now. http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001677.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Apr 18, 2004 #8
    True, but if the Bush did do the things that Woodward says he did, than Bush should be impeached.
  10. Apr 18, 2004 #9
    GWB takes after his grandfather, not his father ;)
  11. Apr 19, 2004 #10

    Sure, but no one in here is mentioning that EVERY source in his book except one is anonymous. That's one hell of a way to try to write a credible book.
  12. Apr 19, 2004 #11
    It is called journalism. True, we put a lot of trust in journalists. There is the possibility that Woodward is making this up (very unlikely). Another possibility is that Woodward's informant is lying or misled (unlikely). Do some research on who Woodward is - his character and accomplishments of a journalist draw a picture of a dedicated, honest, a thorough journalist. Again, I really doubt that Woodward would be broadcasting this to millions of people if he wasn't sure about the accuracy of his information. Most of Woodward's other revelations did not surprise me. This one did. Let's see if the Republican controlled congress or Ashcroft do absolutely anything - besides attacking Woodward and stonewalling any inquiry of course - about this.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2004
  13. Apr 19, 2004 #12
    I can think of a few newspapers that were considered highly credible until recently. You fail to explain to me why it is unlikely that his informant is misled or lying. Expanding Woodward's perceived credibility to an anonymous figure is amazingly naive, IMO.

    Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
  14. Apr 19, 2004 #13


    User Avatar

    Unfortunately, I"m getting a bad sense of d'jevu. I think we know how these type of things play out, from experience. (unless you're more then a few years younger then I am).

    A very good analysis by UPI's Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave who covered Tet as Newsweek's chief foreign correspondent and had seven tours in Vietnam.
    Read the whole article, it gives a very good perspective on how the media not only reports but creates history, wins-and-loses wars.
    Analysis: A mini-Tet offensive in Iraq?
  15. Apr 19, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    He would lie about it for the same reason other reporters lie about things. I'm not saying he has (I haven't read his book - and don't plan to), but it would not be at all out of the ordinary if he did.

    I'm amazed that you would trust Woodward so implicitly.
  16. Apr 19, 2004 #15
    He has made testable claims- if 700 million for the Afghan war were used in the Iraq war buildup without congress knowing, well, that's unconstitutional. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to test this though, probably has gone through the shredder by now
  17. Apr 19, 2004 #16
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002857 [Broken]

    To sum up: Ask Bandar. I don't want to give an answer to a simple question (maybe because he doesn't want to get caught lying? eh?). Oh and we LOVE free markets (what the hell is that supposed to mean?).
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  18. Apr 19, 2004 #17
    Actually there have been several people recently cvoming forward and saying Bush was bent on conquest of that area long ago. Several books, several former employees, et cetera. Each time, all Bush can do is an ad hominem reply: "They are unhappy former employees with sour grapes."
  19. Apr 20, 2004 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nein! Sein nicht zutreffendes! Sein nicht zutreffendes!
  20. Apr 20, 2004 #19
    I think that (at this stage of the "game") anybody who believes that this whole debacle is over ANYTHING other than oil (and profits to be derived from such a commodity), really needs their head read.

    Remember, Saddam invaded the 27th Province of Iraq (Kuwait) because of a valid dispute over Kuwaiti/USA control of oilfields in "no man's land".
    The first Bush then lied to the world that it was over "Defending Democracy" HA!
    It was obviously over Oil then, and it's over Oil now.
    Note, that Kuwait is STILL A FEUDAL RACIST STATE. Democracy, yeh right...

    The Second War is the same crap, all over again.
  21. Apr 20, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong...

    Impeachment is when the president does something illegal.

    I fail to see how he has done anything illegal here, even if it is true.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no Bush fan, but making trade agreements to bolster your reelection chances and sharing information about your country's plans about another country's neighbor is far from illegal. It may be morally bankrupt, but let's be honest: we are talking about a politician here. Bush or republicans don't have a monopoly on being morally bankrupt.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook