Surprise surprise: the entire Bush clan is a bunch of shameless, crooked criminals!

Riskmanager · Mar 16, 2004

http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

Jesus Christ, I can't believe the dumbest of those Texan retards is in charge of the world's biggest arsenal of WMDs as well as the world's biggest economy. I'm sure in a few years, the doctors will find an explanation/justification for W's behavior, just like they did for Ronnie Raygun's...

Excerpts:

"Political connections often helped protect S&L misconduct;9 in the Bushâs case, George seniorâs record demonstrated laxity toward the perpetrators, several of whom were in his own social circles."

"In 1990, federal regulators filed a $200-million lawsuit against Neil Bush and other officers of the Silverado Banking, accusing them of âgross negligenceâ contributing to its $1 billion collapse.1 âOur conclusion is that Silverado was the victim of sophisticated schemes and abuses by insiders and of gross negligence by its directors and outside professionals,â FDIC Senior Deputy General Counsel Douglas H. Jones said in a statement."

"On September 7, 2000, Associated Press reported that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents newly released under the Freedom of Information act demonstrated that before he sold the stock, George W. Bush was fully aware that Harken was suffering from a severe cash crisis and was poised to lose millions."

harrytrader · Mar 16, 2004

If they were only crooks... you could thank God

http://www.christianews.net/usa.htm

in "The Faith of George W. Bush" a unique publishing co-venture between Charisma House and Penguin Group (USA) Inc., the world's largest publishing empire.

*Before Bush announced his candidacy, he invited Texas-based evangelist James Robison to meet with him. Bush told Robison that he had given his life to Christ and that he felt God wanted him to be president.

He also confided in Robison that he felt "something was going to happen" and that the country would need his leadership in a time of crisis. The 9/11 tragedy struck just nine months after Bush's inauguration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If behind the scene Rumsfeld can help the divine it cannot do bad no ?

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html

This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?

Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There--in an article by military analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon--came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

catmango · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from Riskmanager:

Jesus Christ, I can't believe the dumbest of those Texan retards is in charge of the world's biggest arsenal of WMDs as well as the world's biggest economy. I'm sure in a few years, the doctors will find an explanation/justification for W's behavior, just like they did for Ronnie Raygun's

And the Clintons made a bucketload through questionable practices with cattle futures, overnighters in the Lincoln bedroom, fundraising from Chinese nationals, and peddling pardons to people like Marc Rich. I'll bet you kept a lid on your outrage back then.

Riskmanager · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from harrytrader:

If they were only crooks... you could thank God

Oh my God, if only half of all this is true, then the US should definitely invade the United States of America, because their regime is a gang of evildoers with a shizophreniac leading the herd. They are robbing the money from the poor populace, and stockpiling huge amounts of WMDs. Oh, and they are systematically ignoring international treaties (e.g. the Kyoto protocol) of course.

Therefore, I think the USA definitely belong to the axis of evil.

bungrider · Mar 16, 2004

personally, i think that the US needs to be divided into multiple countries to prevent what happened in 11/2000.

the potential financial and human costs of having another rogue government are too high to bear.

separate leaders and separate currencies.

basically, all the people who vote republican can live in-between the coasts and enjoy their currency being sold into the ground, while all the people who live on the coasts get cheaper farm produce, and can have democrat or libertarian leaders...

as for texas, i say we give them to mexico.

cable · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from bungrider:

...as for texas, i say we give them to mexico.

You mean give them BACK to Mexico.

When I was in Puerto Vallarta this January, I talked Mexican history with a professor there. He talked about the Mexican 'Civil War', Morellos, Diaz, Pancho Villa, a bunch of other guys there I'd never heard of. He grimaced a bit when he mentioned the US invading Mexico and taking California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona (I believe those were the four states the US took but I don't remember exactly). Then he grinned and said Mexico's revenge was to make lots of "love child" in these states.

I wonder if it had anything to do with people finding oil in Texas while it was still part of Mexico? Just a crazy conspiracy theory -- I should research a bit, but that would be TOO perfect if it were true.

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from bungrider:

personally, i think that the US needs to be divided into multiple countries to prevent what happened in 11/2000.

the potential financial and human costs of having another rogue government are too high to bear.

separate leaders and separate currencies.

basically, all the people who vote republican can live in-between the coasts and enjoy their currency being sold into the ground, while all the people who live on the coasts get cheaper farm produce, and can have democrat or libertarian leaders...

as for texas, i say we give them to mexico.

We tried that once, but the North invaded us, committed innumerable war crimes and imposed a cruel and crrupt occupation.

Personally, I think a division between "red states" and "blue states" would make a lot of sense. Basically the productive, growing parts of the country would be able to shake off the dead weight of the Gore states, with their corrupt welfare state systmes and domination by union bosses, illegal immigrants and radical activists.

Unfortunately, within 5 or 6 years they would be begging for us to either protect them from some foreign power or bail them out financially.

maxpi · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from Riskmanager:

Oh my God, if only half of all this is true, then the US should definitely invade the United States of America, because their regime is a gang of evildoers with a shizophreniac leading the herd. They are robbing the money from the poor populace, and stockpiling huge amounts of WMDs. Oh, and they are systematically ignoring international treaties (e.g. the Kyoto protocol) of course.

Therefore, I think the USA definitely belong to the axis of evil.

Geez, still pissed about the Kyoto garbage, get over it.

Doubter · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from bungrider:

personally, i think that the US needs to be divided into multiple countries to prevent what happened in 11/2000.

the potential financial and human costs of having another rogue government are too high to bear.

separate leaders and separate currencies.

basically, all the people who vote republican can live in-between the coasts and enjoy their currency being sold into the ground, while all the people who live on the coasts get cheaper farm produce, and can have democrat or libertarian leaders...

as for texas, i say we give them to mexico.

______________________________________________

I'll second the separation idea and have for some time. Walter Williams wrote and excellent piece on this about a year ago in which he said we needed to do this while it was still peaceful enough to accomplish.

The red states wouldn't be burdened with the high welfare and crime blue states, which would be a big benefit. Newsmax had an article on this some time ago. The red states would rather support the military and not be forced to finance the blue state welfare.

Getting rid of Kennedy, Hillary, Sharpton, and several others would drive the red states estatic. The red states will welcome Texas and maybe even western Canada.

I don't know how the blue states will get cheaper farm produce unless it was imported from countries with less enviro regulation. But the red states could produce cheaper if the envior regs forced on them by the blue states were no longer around.

AnonymousTrader · Mar 16, 2004

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

We tried that once, but the North invaded us, committed innumerable war crimes and imposed a cruel and crrupt occupation.

Personally, I think a division between "red states" and "blue states" would make a lot of sense. Basically the productive, growing parts of the country would be able to shake off the dead weight of the Gore states, with their corrupt welfare state systmes and domination by union bosses, illegal immigrants and radical activists.

Unfortunately, within 5 or 6 years they would be begging for us to either protect them from some foreign power or bail them out financially.

Even while I am from the North, I think that it makes sense. And the states should have more autonomy that they do now!

Too much unresponsible government liberalism these days.