HOW And WHY Bush became President. THE NEM REPORT - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Diuretic · #31 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

I thought the Supreme Court made Bush president?

NEM · #32 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Well, I certainly don't. I don't like him. I think he's been a bad President.

But don't; not for a second, believe that my dislike of Bush will, somehow, translate to my believing every little bit of bullshit written about him...

Might I suggest that you enlighten us as to what portions are, as you say, "bullshit?"

Then, of course, there was the " White House Iraq Group" put together by the administration to sell the war. And, of course, many of Bush's own comments, fully documented, from the days BEFORE he became presidlent, to his early days in the White House, all aimed at Saddam Hussein, not Osama Bin Laden, a family (the Bin Ladens) that to this day, the Bush family is involved with in business ventures.

================================================== ======

The members of the White House Iraq Group include: [8][9]

Karl Rove
Karen Hughes
Mary Matalin
Andrew Card
James R. Wilkinson
Nicholas E. Calio
Condoleezza Rice
Stephen Hadley
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby
Michael Gerson

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'"[1].

White House Iraq Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soon after WHIG was formed, the Bush Administration's claims about the danger Iraq posed escalated significantly:

July 23, 2002: The Downing Street Memo was written, in which British intelligence said "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

August, 2002: White House Iraq Group formed.

September 5, 2002: In a WHIG meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. According to Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, "The original plan had been to place it in an upcoming presidential speech, but WHIG members fancied it so much that when the Times reporters contacted the White House to talk about their upcoming piece [about aluminum tubes], one of them leaked Gerson's phrase — and the administration would soon make maximum use of it." (Hubris, p. 35.)[2]

September 6, 2002: In an interview with the New York Times, Andrew Card did not mention the WHIG specifically but hinted at its mission: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." On September 17, 2002, Matt Miller stated on NPR that the above quote from Andrew Card was in response to the question: "... why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq" [3]

September 7, 2002: Judith Miller of The New York Times reports Bush administration officials said "In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium."[4] In fact, many government officials had concluded the tubes were unsuitable for uranium refinement.

September 7-8, 2002: President Bush and nearly all his top advisers blanketed the airways, talking about the dangers posed by Iraq.[5]
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Richard Cheney cited the New York Times article, and accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past fourteen months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.
On CNN, Condi Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
On CBS, President Bush said U.N. weapons inspectors, before they were denied access to Iraq in 1998, concluded that Saddam was "six months away from developing a weapon." He also cited satellite photos released by a U.N. agency Friday that show unexplained construction at Iraq sites that weapons inspectors once visited to search for evidence Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms. "I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said.

October 14, 2002: President Bush says of Saddam "This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." [6]

January 21, 2003: Bush says of Saddam "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies." [7]

February 5, 2003: Colin Powell addresses the United Nations, asserting that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

March 19, 2003: The U.S. invades Iraq.

Need Any more be said to show how Bush was used, ala the Manchurian Candidate, to ensure that he would attack Iraq, and put the Clean Break Policy into effect...to get it started...

READ THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROGRESSION OF HOW THE CLEAN BREAK POLICY WILL WORK...

From Iraq, to Lebanon, to Iran, To Syria...to world domination.,

THEY ARE RIGHT ON SCHEDULE, BUT IT OCULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IT THEY HADN'T CONVINCED BUSH TO FULFILL A VENDETTA AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN FOR ATTEMPTING TO KILL HIS DADDY (Bush's)
...NEM
bACK LATER........

danielpalos · #33 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

If I understand you correctly, our current administration was bent on being more holy and moral than Islam (in order to spread our shining beacon of democracy by the sword), instead of simply promoting the temporal, general welfare of that region. If that is the case, it is easier to understand why the statism of the UN would be preferable to the current anarchy of the US in spreading a shinning beacon of democracy, beyond our own borders.

Are you implying that our current batch of legislators did not understand the difference between the common defense (which is provided for in our constitution), and a (foreign entanglement producing) common offense (which is not expressly provided for in our constitution)?

jimmyd95 · #34 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Bush would have lost in 2000 had it not been for the actions of Clinton. Al Gore had to separate himself as much as possible to get more votes. So, NEM, you are also saying that the people in your conspiracy also orchestrated Clinton's actions too, eh?

Joao Dasilva · #35 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

To answer the OP, Bush was appointed president by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision which was soooo contrary to the rule of law, and based on the 'logic' of the ends justifying the means, that even the 5 co-conspirators said the ruling applied only to the case.

He was then given another term in 2004 via a stolen election in Ohio.

Se Bush V Gore, and The Conyers Report for more info re: this.

danielpalos · #36 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyd95

Bush would have lost in 2000 had it not been for the actions of Clinton. Al Gore had to separate himself as much as possible to get more votes. So, NEM, you are also saying that the people in your conspiracy also orchestrated Clinton's actions too, eh?

I think Gore erred in not asking for more campaign help from Clinton. He probably could have won his home state and Arkansas with more help from Clinton, even with the dimness of our shinning beacon of democracy in Florida.

jimmyd95 · #37 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

He was then given another term in 2004 via a stolen election in Ohio.

Se Bush V Gore, and The Conyers Report for more info re: this.

Even most extreme liberals I know (I live in New York City and know a fair share) do not go around saying the 2004 election was "stolen." C'mon, now. Sure, it was en vogue to say in the aftermath of the '04 election, but no one seriously still says this with any conviction, do they?

Joao Dasilva · #38 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

No one familiar with the copious amount of evidence 'still says' that the 2004 election wasn't stolen.

I guess you don't read Harpers, Rolling Stone, or watch C-Span.

Captain Trips · #39 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Let me be the first to suggest we all put on our tin foil hats.

God, yeah.

I'm constructing one at this moment. Those beams must be stopped. Their .....I hear voices ........

........ there's flys buzzing around my head ..there's flys buzzing around my head ..there's flys buzzing around my head ... ...

...........eeeuaahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaAAAAAAAAAAAAHhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!

SamInTheSouth · #40 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Is NEM the brother of Robodoon?

Captain Trips · #41 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Is NEM the brother of Robodoon?

One wonders. This IS the internet

jotathought · #42 (**permalink**) 02-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

George W. Bush lost the popular vote. The bottom line in my mind is that he won because he's good at being absolute and certain, even if it's wrong and that liberals in America are too sissy and don't fight hard enough or shout loud enough. Progressive people came to America to make it better than "over there" where all societies knew about was aristocracy or poverty. Progressive people changed that, and laid out a new deal that said that we wanted to live somewhere where you've got a chance at something more moderate and balanced than one end or the other of the spectrum.

And it's that lovely middleground that makes it so that those kinds of candidates have a hard time winning because middleground people compromise, listen, think things over. All Al Gore had to do, and I wish somebody close to him could have gotten in his face about it, was simply pretend that he was the obvious choice of the entire nation since he had won the popular vote by over half a million. But for some stupid reason, again, one of those "only in America" moments, the guy who didn't get the most votes acted like he was the unanimous choice and that got the ball rolling, that was the deciding factor: this guy Bush seemed to really want it more, and in that fight, Americans will always make you the winner.

FYI it doesn't matter if a president loses the popular vote by 1 vote or 200 million votes -- Popular vote in the United States is IRRELEVANT

jimmyd95 · #43 (**permalink**) 02-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

No one familiar with the copious amount of evidence 'still says' that the 2004 election wasn't stolen.

I guess you don't read Harpers, Rolling Stone, or watch C-Span.

No, I tend to stay away from most sources of "news" and come to my own conclusions. Sure, there is evidence that there were errors in the voting machines in Ohio during the '04 election. However, that evidence cannot overcome the sheer amount of votes needed to overturn the results. We are not talking about just a few hundred or even thousands of votes. Sorry, but the evidence just doesn't support your claim. And, as I said, there have been inquiries made by some prominent and intelligent left-wing people that said the same thing.

NEM · #44 (**permalink**) 02-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotathought

FYI it doesn't matter if a president loses the popular vote by 1 vote or 200 million votes -- Popular vote in the United States is IRRELEVANT

But, in today's world, it shouldn't be. And, someday, the electoral college will either be thrown out, or revamped.

I, for one, think that the electoral college, if it remains, should be revised to reflect the percentage of votes that each candidate received in each state.

For example, if a state has, lets say 20 electoral votes, and the actual vote gave one candidate 50 percent of the vote, a 2nd candidate 40 percent of the vote, with the other 10 percent going to other candidates,

One candidate would get 10 electoral votes, the other would get 8 and the other 2 to be divided, as equally as possible, between the remaining candidates, based on the percentage of popular vote that they received.

And, under certain conditions, electors could change their vote if there was any type of election fraud proven.

But, IMO, the electoral college, as it stands now, is obsolete and outdated.

NEM · #45 (**permalink**) 02-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Is NEM the brother of Robodoon?

Nope, just one who recognizes what actually has happened.... and, in time, it will all be proven out. Of that, I have no doubt.

While some of the evidence that I have furnished has yet to pan out, the majority of it fills the bill, almost too perfectly.

And, if anyone takes the time to read, and absorb, the Clean Break Policy....one can easily see how we have followed the suggested schedule, almost right down to the crossing of the t's and the dotting of the i's.

We are right on schedule....country by country, as it was written...

However, certain events have put a slight stop to some of the plans, events they did not foresee...and I will discuss them in a later post. As for now, I have to take the wife out. She does not drive. Thank GOD.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/political-parties-campaigns-elections/36236-how-why-bush-became-president-nem-report.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
HOW And WHY Bush became President. THE NEM REPORT - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum	This thread	Refback	02-23-2007 11:35 AM