News Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now

  • Thread starter RageSk8
  • Start date

RageSk8

I really don't know how to express my shock and anger over this:
"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, 'So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?'" And Cheney who has said nothing says the following: "Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn't enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. "Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, 'Their message is my message'" says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
(emphasis mine)
Bush shared top secret information with a known terrorist supporter who in turn promised to manipulate the oil market for Bush's reelection!
 

kat

12
0
I'm sorry, I've been busy and haven't kept up with this.
Woodward knows this how?
 

RageSk8

" 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?)....
 
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...
 

kat

12
0
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?
 

RageSk8

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?
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.
 

kat

12
0
hmmmm, aaaah, oooooh

RageSk8 said:
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.

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:

RageSk8

Well, independent investigation and "Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now " are quite different.
True, but if the Bush did do the things that Woodward says he did, than Bush should be impeached.
 

schwarzchildradius

GWB takes after his grandfather, not his father ;)
 
55
2
RageSk8 said:
True, but if the Bush did do the things that Woodward says he did, than Bush should be impeached.

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.
 

RageSk8

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.
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:
55
2
RageSk8 said:
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.
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.
 

kat

12
0
phatmonky said:
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

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.
WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- Any seasoned reporter covering the Tet offensive in Vietnam 36 years ago is well over 60 and presumably retired or teaching journalism is one of America's 4,200 colleges and universities. Before plunging into an orgy of erroneous and invidious historical parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, a reminder about what led to the U.S. defeat in Southeast Asia is timely.
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?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,702
4,923
RageSk8 said:
So, unless you think Woodward is lying (why the hell would he lie about this?)....
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.
 

schwarzchildradius

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
 

RageSk8

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002857 [Broken]

QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --

QUESTION: He didn?t talk specifically about the election.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it?s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don?t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we?ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren?t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.

QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President?s reelection?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --

QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.

QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.

MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.

QUESTION: We?re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --

MR. McCLELLAN: I?m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I?m sorry?

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I?m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --

QUESTION: Is there a deal?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn?t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I?m telling you --

QUESTION: I?m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I?m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --

QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.

QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --

QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.

MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.
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:
15
0
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."
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
schwarzchildradius said:
GWB takes after his grandfather, not his father ;)
Nein! Sein nicht zutreffendes! Sein nicht zutreffendes!
 
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.
 

enigma

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,738
9
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.
 
15
0
Remember that whole "USA Constitution" thing?
 
The Constitution Is Only There For Convenience

The USA's Constitution is a tattered old rag (probably best left out in the dunny for use by someone in need...).
The USA's Constitution is ignored by the establishment, unless it is required to enforce their will.
 

schwarzchildradius

No! It is not applicable! It is not applicable!
heh heh
enigma:
the constitution clearly states:
apportionments from the treasury shall be made with the consent of congress.
according to woodward, 700 million supposedly for the afghan war was apportioned for the build-up in Iraq, without the consent of congress. That's unconstitutional, and if true, impeachable.
 

amp

I'm a bit shocked, after all Woodwards' book reinforces the credibility of O'Neils' and Clarkes' books. And they in turn lend credence to woodwards tome.
 

Related Threads for: Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now

  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
8K
Replies
62
Views
5K
Replies
518
Views
41K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
5K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top