OT: Poll: Bush Regime Most Corrupt in History?

[StoneinaPond]

...and he wants an independant investigator to determine that to avoid looking like any sort of coverup is occuring.

Ashcroft's choice certainly does not seem independent. The new special counsel (his name escapes me for now) is a Republican political appointee from Chicago, and is still part of the Justice Department.

 

What's he going to do, commute?

[Saint Johnny B]

Asscrackhead has close ties to Karl Rove, Rove apparenetly served Asscrackhead in some political advoror capacity, thus, Asscrackedhead's disqualification of himself. But it does look like a coverup is is in the making. An Independent Counsel should be appointed by Congress to get to the bottom of this crime. Write your Senators and Congressman and demand the appointment of an indepeddent counsel.

[Griffinator]

Since Johnny failed to respond to this post, I will.

 

Originally posted by GZsound:

I did not support the war in Iraq. I had a very hard time understanding why we had to go when we did. I was more hoping for a global assault on terrorist camps, hideouts, command posts, etc. everywhere they existed.

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page.

 

I also have been dismayed at the lack of WMD hard evidence. It makes me wonder what happened to the WMD? He had them..that is proven. Clinton had intelligence he had them and bombed Iraq..proven. So the question is what happened to them? Iraqi scientists say they transferred them, burried them and destroyed some. I think we will find out.

 

Do ya think, possibly, that Saddam recognized the imminent danger of dealing with a hawk like George, and destroyed what stocks he had left? (Remember - bio-weapons, including the ones we sold him, have a limited shelf life) - Only Bush didn't want to hear about Saddam finally coming into compliance with the UN resolution - he wanted to attack.

 

This is where you loose me completly. To make statements like this show you to be completely taken over with hate and totally blinded to reality.

Framed in the above perspective, the idea that Bush and company were in on a very criminal act of war against a sovereign nation that was not violating any UN resolutions isn't hard to grasp. Especially when you see the potential financial benefit for the parties involved.

 

I am sorry you hope for the continued use of torture chambers, rape, mass murder and, yes, your new favorite word..genocide, in Iraq.

I didn't see anything about stamping out human rights abuses wherever they stood in Bush's campaign platform. I still see plenty of human rights abuses going on all over the world, and Bush doing nothing about them, nor even indicating an intent to do anything about them.

 

I feel sorry for anyone that would hope for more grief being brought against the people of Iraq by Saddam. I'm sorry you seem to support him and his actions while condemning our administration.

Sorry, but the idea that the Bush administration went into Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons is not only absurd, but it's below you. Frankly, I expected you to have a more realistic view of human greed, particularly as it pertains to the US government and those who aspire to control it.

[Saint Johnny B]

Thanks Grif. Good job!

[Saint Johnny B]

How much did Bait and Switch Bush and Dick Cheney steal today?

[Chuck Moore]

So how much of the American people think Bush did the right thing in Iraq? ........ still about 2 to 1

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck you should check out:

 

www.corporatecrimereporter.com

 

Look at the list of 100 top corporate rip offs, but the nice thing is that the whisleblowers all got a percentage of the recovery. IOW, 100 new millionaries were made by exposing corporations who defraud the government. Notice that some of Bush and Cheney's "close business ties" are on the list of criminals.

 

There are also links to articles by law professors and experts,

 

There is also a new thread here on this topic.

[Chuck Moore]

Notice that some of Bush and Cheney's "close business ties" are on the list of criminals.

 

I knew a guy that got busted selling coke too.... doesn't make me a drug dealer. I also had a freind commit suicide once... that doesn't make me want to put a gun to my head. Similarly, several of the Clinton's close associates ended up in jail, but you would be the first to say they never proved anything on him.

[Dasher]

Most corrupt in history?

 

Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed

 

Mayor Daley

 

Nero

 

???

 

Dasher (it could always be worse - and if Bush has his way, it WILL!!!)

[Saint Johnny B]

C'mon Chuck...get real. Ken Kay of Enron had an office in the White House. There were secret meetings of some big energy corporations with Cheney, Cheney was ordered by a court of law to turn the info over to proscecutors, Cheney tried to stonewall and hide things. Why? Becuase they did some price fixing that made some of these guys illgotten and illegal profits. These are crimes by the way.

 

The Bush Regime stinks of corruption!

[Saint Johnny B]

After going to C-Span.org and looking at the trail of money which is realted to the trail at www.corporatecrimeresprter.com, I'm pretty convinced that Bait and Switch Bush and the Big Dick Cheney are the most corrupt bastards in the world. Certainly, the Bush Crime Family is the most corrupt Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Oganiziation to ever occupy the White House.

[Hound Dog]

We should be honored to be in the company of Johnny B. You can tell from his posts that he obviously has privileged access to critical information that any of us, the entire media, and most members of the government do not, and he has an unparalleled ability to distinguish truth from fiction that is superior to the most intelligent minds in the world. I am sure that he has adequate documentation to back up all of his claims. My only question is: why is he wasting these talents in this forum. He should be the Head of State of a revolutionary country or some new movement to change the world.

[Saint Johnny B]

Hound,

 

It was "Bait and Switch Bush" who made the offhand comment that he wanted to be a "dictator," not me.

 

But we do have an alternative to Bush, get him out of office and through him in jail where he belongs. No-bid contracts. Fake forged documents. Outright lies on all sorts of things. Refusing to honor court orders to turn over info on secret meetings with energy corporation officials. Billions of dollars gone. Wake up!

[GZsound]

Originally posted by Griffinator:

Since Johnny failed to respond to this post, I will.

 

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page.

 

And I'm glad you are glad..

 

Do ya think, possibly, that Saddam recognized the imminent danger of dealing with a hawk like George, and destroyed what stocks he had left? (Remember - bio-weapons, including the ones we sold him, have a limited shelf life) - Only Bush didn't want to hear about Saddam finally coming into compliance with the UN resolution - he wanted to attack.

 

What your suggestion does is presume Saddam is a huge idiot. He is incapable of leading his country as he had done for many years.

 

But first..we did not sell Saddam bio weapons. Period.

 

Please provide us with the date Saddam "came into compliance with the UN resolution". I must have missed that part.

 

So what you are saying is Saddam destroyed his WMD? And then what did he do? Insist on mass numbers of inspectors? Insist his scientists talk to the UN inspectors without fear of death to themselves or their families? Risk a full military assualt by keeping quiet about his WMC program? Not hide long range missles out of the cities under the trees?

 

Your premise makes it sound like the only one who thought Saddam had WMD was George Bush. Silly..

 

Framed in the above perspective, the idea that Bush and company were in on a very criminal act of war against a sovereign nation that was not violating any UN resolutions isn't hard to grasp. Especially when you see the potential financial benefit for the parties involved.

 

Scott, check out UN resolution 1441 for me. I fail to grasp your premise that Saddam was not violating any resolution. Where did you get your information? And I am not sure a President can be accused of a "very criminal act" when he has congressional approval for the act. Again, statements like these make no sense.

 

I didn't see anything about stamping out human rights abuses wherever they stood in Bush's campaign platform. I still see plenty of human rights abuses going on all over the world, and Bush doing nothing about them, nor even indicating an intent to do anything about them.

 

I guess I don't know what you mean. You see us doing nothing around the world? That seems pretty interesting considering the money and aid we provide worldwide.

 

Sorry, but the idea that the Bush administration went into Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons is not only absurd, but it's below you. Frankly, I expected you to have a more realistic view of human greed, particularly as it pertains to the US government and those who aspire to control it.[/b]

 

You misunderstand my post. Johhny B. is an obvious supporter of Saddam. I have never said, nor do I believe we went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. I have said on many occasions we went there to establish an American military presense in the middle of a hotbed of terrorist activity, terrorist supporters and nations engaged in creating whatever means necessary to destroy us.

 

A prime example of the results of the policy is the recent events in Libya. Disarm a hostile nation without a shot fired, without a single casualty and without an invasion. It would appear we have stopped a major threat to our nation by our actions and by having an administration (the first in a long time, by the way) that does what it says.

 

You may keep up the "war for oil" mantra if it makes you feel better, but even a staunch administration hater like yourself must be glad we have had success in Libya..

 

And now N. Korea wants to chat.. go figger..

[Saint Johnny B]

GZ, the reason that people discount much of what you say has to do with goofy, stupid comments and false attributions such as saying I support Saddam. I support Saddam the same as you support Hilter, Stalin, and wanna-be dictators like "Bait and Switch Bush." The man lied. It's documented. Have you found any nukes or missles today? Nah, I didn't think so. The only thing they found was oil, no-bid contracts, and a crushing deficit. If Bush were about humitarian adventures, there are plenty of hurting people right here in America, but he does little or nothing for them, he does nothing to save jobs, nothing to prevent corporations from relocating jobs and factories in slave wage countries, nothing to raise tarriffs on those who violate human rights with their corporate business practices, in short, Bush is not now, nor has he ever been, about anything even remotely resembling humanitarian purposes. However, Bush is now, and always has been about representing the special interests of big moneyed corporations...even if it means raping the Americian Taxpayer and robbing them blind. Why you can't see through Bush and Cheney is beyond me.

 

And it is not now, nor has it ever been, an excuse or justification to say, "Well those other guys did it or are doing it." Those other guys are not now in the White House, they are not now stealing the American Taxpayer blind. Bush and Cheney are.

[Saint Johnny B]

Bump. In honor of Harpo W/Mr. Wow.

[the stranger]

Originally posted by GZsound:

 

But first..we did not sell Saddam bio weapons. Period.

[/QB]

No, we just sold him all the ingredients and the recipe.

 

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy

-- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials

including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs

similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs,

and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Dep-artment documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug

pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse

engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken

in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example,

that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to

the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that

causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31,

1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of

Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June

1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which

at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a

month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from

the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed

materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chem ical warfare-agent

production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related

materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured

items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce,

and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its

missile delivery system development programmes.'

 

---more...

 

Testimony of Gary Milhollin

 

Professor Emeritus

University of Wisconsin Law School

and

Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control

 

Before the Committee on Armed Services

United States House of Representatives

 

September 19, 2002

 

In the article in the New York Times from 1992, entitled "Iraq's Bomb, Chip by Chip," we see that America's leading electronic companies sold sensitive equipment directly to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, to sites where atomic bomb fuel was made, and to a site where A-bomb detonators were made. American companies also shipped directly to Saad 16, Iraq's main missile building site, and to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, which oversaw Iraq's missile and A-bomb development. Virtually every nuclear and missile site in Iraq received high-speed American computers.

 

These exports are set out in greater detail in our 1991 report "Licensing Mass Destruction." The report shows that all of these exports were licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department and, in many cases, the Commerce Department knew full well that the exports were going to nuclear, missile and military installations. Why did the Commerce Department approve such exports? Because the United States was following a policy of putting trade above national security. The bill now before Congress follows this same policy. That policy was wrong then, and it is just as wrong now.

 

---more...

 

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

 

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

 

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

 

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

 

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

 

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

 

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

 

Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

 

---more...

 

http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

[GZsound]

So we did sell Saddam WMD or we didn't sell him WMD? We sold him chemical precursors and he made WMD out of them or we gave him ready to use WMD?

 

And Johnny.. you simply cannot have it both ways. You hate Bush, you hate Cheney, you think the war in Iraq was a mistake, you think we went to war for oil, you want us out of Iraq, you do not recognize the fact we have taken a cruel dictator out of power. If it was up to you we would not have deposed Saddam..

 

Now try to follow the logic. You prefer having Saddam in power. You obviously support Saddam.

 

Pretty simple conclusion to make..

 

Try this..

 

The police raid a drug house because they have solid evidence there are drugs in the house. They enter the house and find no drugs but six dead teen age kids in the basement.

 

Using your logic, the police should leave the people in the house alone, leave, and never bother them again. Any action the police take would be based on a lie in your twisted logic and because of that, any action taken by the people in the house would be just fine with you.. After all, there were no drugs..

 

You are so easy to figure out..

[the stranger]

I don't think we sold him pre-packaged wmds. It wouldn't surprise me, but the record seems to show just dual use materials shipments.

 

Here's some quotes I found searching through some discussion on this board (I found it searching for info)...

 

"It's no secret that the United States, United Kingdom, France and West Germany (FDR) armed Iraq with chemical weapons for use against Iran in an effort to stop the Islamic revolution that had overthrown the American client dictatorship, the Shah."

 

"Do a search on articles relating to Iraqi chemical attacks on the Kurds in '88 and you will find government spokesmen denying it happened."

 

"I'm also not sure if it's ethical to arm a madman with WMD's, tell him to use them on someone, and then declare war on him for having WMD's and using them on someone."

[Saint Johnny B]

No GZ, you are still wrong. You cannot put words in my mouth or attempt to describe my logic by making stuff up which I never said.

 

Is it so hard for you to understand that I do not support Saddam based on what limited info I have of him AND that I do not support Bush. Two wrongs added together do not make a right.

 

From where I sit Bush is the greater evil because he is doing damage to MY country. From where I sit, there is not much differnce between these two, they are both despotic leaders who appear to have committed high crimes. As criminals, they should both face a public trial in a court of law, and upon conviction be imprisoned for life in a maximum security facility.

 

GZ, you'd be better off thinking of me as someone who is tough on crime. The greater the impact of the crime, the greater the jail sentence.

 

I do not regard Bush and Cheney or corporate execs as being somehow above the law simply because they are white men holding an office, esp. when they disgrace and dishonor that office as both Bait and Switch Bush and Cheney have done.

And when the motive is greed and the graft and corruption is rampant, as it is with Bush and Cheney selling the American Taxpayers out to special interests, then I am angered and would like to see the law enforced and criminal prosecutions begun against all of the criminal element. In my view, political affiliations should play no part in prosecuting criminals, thus, any democrats, libertarians, independents, would also be prosecuted if they have violated the law as Bush and Cheney have done.

 

If Clinton did some of the same crimes that Bush and Cheney have, I think he should be prosecuted.

 

Either we a nation of laws, applied equally to all or we are not. Those who blantly violate the law and rights of others must face the consequences. Bush and Cheney fit that category. Sorry.

[Saint Johnny B]

Bush is corrupt and should be jailed.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

I do not support Saddam based on what limited info I have of him AND that I do not support Bush.

You're kidding, you don't support Bush ?

[Mr.WOW]

GO DEAN.

[wireline]

Johnny, how much do you get paid to continually post this tripe? After looking at the sheer number of repetitive attacks, there must be some motivation other than your own sense of patriotism...Political activism for self gain is one thing; activism for profit is something else altogether...

 

Or, you don't have anything else to do. In either case, your constant bombardment of blame Bush for everything has gotten rather passe[/i}...If you wish to engage in intellectual exhanges, then do so, but the thousands of "Hate Bush Because I Say So" posts paint a picture of a disgruntled 9th grader who couldn't get a prom date...

 

C'mon, man - you can do better than this...I've seen some of your other posts throughout the net in which you do show a modicum of intellectual capacity...why won't you show that capacity when discussing politics? What is your real motivation?

[Mr.WOW]

What is your real motivation?

 

Socialism.

[Hanshananigan]

I thougth this was interesting:

 

Consumer debt more than doubles in a decade

 

Basically, people are racking up (non-mortgage) debt out the yin-yang while saving less, with more people living hand to mouth. Some pundits say all's kosher, while others feel it is constrictive on the economy. They say during the next economic downturn when interest rates go back up, people will not be able to afford their debt, spend more money paying debt, and buyi less, therefore slowing the economy.

[Philter]

We're fine until all those nations that own us decide that our credit is starting to look shaky.

 

If the deficit keeps on growing into the trillions, it could come at any time. We're in uncharted territory with the current size of our national debt and trade imbalance and no one knows where such a "hard landing" might be.

 

Can you say Argentina?

[Peake]

And guess who it would effect... Not the ultrarich and politically-connected.

[Mr.WOW]

Never bet against the Americans.

[1_dup16]

No, Bush regime is not the most corrupt, but the corrupt regime with most budget.